Roosevelt Institution

I'm not entirely sure what to write about the conference so far. Policy and issue work is not my usual bag, and this conference feels quite different from the kind I'm used to attending. There are congressmen here and non profit heads. Great activists like Deepak Barghava, and Democratic Names like Simon Rosenberg and Mike Lux are in attendance, as are the usual crazy progressives who bring all their personal baggage to these types of events and use their time at the mic to harangue the panelists. There are also a lot of really smart college and grad students asking complex questions about policy.

Superficially, I'm woefully underdressed (though that's not unusual at these things) and stick out like a sore thumb. More substantively, I just attended a panel on the New Deal called "The Intellectual Underpinning of a Renegotiated Social Contract," featuring the afformentioned Mike Lux, Simon Rosenberg, Deepak Barghava, and Tim Fertik, a Roosevelt Institution fellow. The content was interesting. Deepak noted that the incrementalist, technocratic progressive approach for last 40 years has failed against a values driven, movement and ideas approach of the conservatives, and any attempt to revitalize or create a New New Deal will have to reckon with both that failure as well as the structural racism that was embedded in our society in part by Roosevelt's programs.

Mike Lux made the point that, from a political perspective, reviving the "old" New Deal is not a good framework for achieving a "new" New Deal. Americans are looking to the future, according to Lux, and 2008 is a debate between future vs. the past. Likewise, our rhetoric must be about the future. Deepak's suggestion is that the idea of a shared fate and common destiny for all Americans might be the messaging Rosetta Stone to translate our policy priorities into reality.

These are all well and good (and necessary), and the Roosevelt Fellows that are sitting on panels alongside some of the bigger names in the progressive movement are more than keeping pace. But I can't help but feel a bizarre culture clash at this conference, and its about more than the fact that I'm in jeans while everyone else is in suits.

Most conferences I go to are very much geared towards action - winning elections, defeating conservatives, winning legislative battles, exchanging best practices. This is much more like an academic conference. Everyone is talking about policy, but it's not a vigorous debate. There will be no new policy working its way out of this conference. Rather, it's a gathering of the policy tribes in which everyone is affirming core progressive policy principles. It's a lecture and most people in the room already agree with the thesis.

I have very little understanding of how the progressive policy world works, as a hierarchy/career path to climb or as a machine whose goal is the creation and passage of policy. So I don't have a good idea as to how a conference like this fits into that machine.

With regard to the generational gap here, Margaret Simms, President of the National Academy of Social Insurance had something very informative to say earlier this morning. She said that achieving a New New Deal needs to be a generational partnership, and we cannot pursue a course that set the generations at odds with each other. At the very least, this conference does seem to be a networking opportunity to forge those bonds between the older and younger generations of progressive policy types. That alone is probably worthwhile.

I've just arrived down in DC for the Roosevelt Institution's conference, Towards a New New Deal: FDR's Liberalism and the Future of American Democracy. It's an interesting crowd. Probably 40% of the crowd are young people involved with Roosevelt - aspiring policy makers. The other 60% seem to be older folks, many of whom probably are policy makers (in the sense that they work at policy oriented institutions). This strikes me as a good thing. In the best case scenario, it means that the Roosevelt Institution isn't ghettoized at a "kids's table" that lacks any connection to the real progressive policy world. We'll see if that observation bears out throughout the day.

We're on a ten minute break now before the first panel. Once things get going I'll pop in every couple of hours with my thoughts on how it is going. In the meantime, mtvU's Editorial Board held it's session with Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. I still haven't had time to watch the clips, but I put them here without comment for your own information/enjoyment.

I know the clips look the same, but they are all different. If you're more for text than video, Ben Adler has the rundown on the forum at the Politico.

Two opportunities are available for those looking to get their feet wet in the world of progressive public policy.

First, DMI Scholars, the summer training program created by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy is now accepting applications for its summer 2008 program. DMI is one of the premier progressive policy shops, doing really innovative work, especially around the middle class. This is the second year their youth training program is in operation, and spots are limited, so I'd get cracking now. For info on the program and last year's crop of trainees, check out the video below.

Second, the Roosevelt Institution, the nation's only progressive, student-run think tank is now accepting submission for its 2008 policy journal. You can find guidelines for submissions here.

This is a guest post from Nate Lowenthiel, the Executive Director of The Roosevelt Institution, a national, student-run think tank.

Judging from PowerShift ’07, the hippies are back. While panelists are discussing green-collar job growth, messaging and the role of corporate America in combating global warming, attendees are circling up on the grass quads, tossing Frisbees and bemoaning the lack of activism on campus.

As I write this, George Lakoff is running late for my third panel session of the day. With the stage open, a corporate CEO trainer steps up and begins exhorting us to use courage and conviction in our battle for the environment. The room is led deep into meditation, our eyes closed. The trainer repeats “I do not have an internal guidance system.” “I do have an internal guidance system.” On the third “I Do,” we open our eyes, and a collective sigh of relief rises. Everyone looks around and smiles.

When Lakoff finally arrives and starts discussing messaging and the way to build support among conservatives for environemtnal issues, students slowly head to the door. A junior tentatively raises his hand, “I just don’t get it—why don’t they care?”

The Lakoff panel is one of 30 or so concurrent sessions running for three days on end. The conference is fantastically well-organized. Almost 6,000 students made the trek to the University of Maryland from all over the country, and the planners managed to deal with transportation, housing and the 1250-acre maze that is the University of Maryland at College park. This monumental achievement costs hundreds of thousands of dollars donated by foundations, corporations and individuals. The goal is to “create a path for young people to lead” environmental change. There are enough training sessions to educate a small army of activists, with an emphasis on recruitment, value messaging, and coalition building.

The conference is working to foster a new sense of professionalism and creativity in the environmental movement. Many top speakers are from organizations like the Apollo alliance, which works to create a broad-based environmental movement that appeals to working class America through an emphasis on innovation, technology investment and growth.

Unfortunately, most of the attendees are from the outdated save-the-polar-bears school of thought. Complaining about pollution, deforestation the general lack of ecological sensitivity has been the mainstay of the environmental movement for decades, and the newest generation of leaders seems bent embracing this well-beaten, circular path.

Serious change will require a broad-based consensus, one that goes far beyond college campuses and the coasts. And building that consensus will require a sensitivity to the complexity of environmental policy, a frank recognition of the need for trade-offs, and a willingness to work with many diverse groups and coalitions. The conference organizers made a concerted effort to move in this direction. Saturday’s morning sessions included time for “affinity groups” where diverse students could gather together and build communities. Expert discussants are encouraging students to move forward with pragmatic campus reforms. The Energy Action Coalition, who put together the conference, consciously reached out to a wide range of schools, including commuter colleges in the south, community colleges in the south-west, and state schools from around the country.

The tie-dyed filled rooms suggest this effort was largely wasted. The lack of diversity could be read in a number of ways. Perhaps outreach was still limited, or the location in Washington encouraged more Northeasterners. The more likely explanation, however, is also the more depressing one. The environment is still a special-interest issue, one that appeals to relatively narrow electorate. Needless to say, the Phish-show like atmosphere of the conference doesn’t inspire much hope for the future. Perhaps flying in dedicated activists to an environmental lovefest isn’t the most productive step forward.

By SARAH LEONARD

Sarah Leonard is a guest blogger for Future Majority. She is currently a student at Columbia University and a Fellow of the Roosevelt Institution at Columbia University.

The American media has propagated a tremendous falsehood with regard to President Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University. The bottom line, with remarkably little variance across major news networks, has been that Columbia is being un-American by engaging in controversial free debate.

This is hardly shocking from conservative sources, such as FOX news. Bill O’Reilly has been reveling in this story for days now, since it combines his two favorite subjects for condemnation – the Ivy League and a Muslim with a podium. He won’t have to imagine a new liberal outrage for at least a few more days.

But the journalistic travesty committed by more mainstream networks, not usual shills for conservative politicians, has been chilling. The typical news segment follows this pattern: a reporter menacingly describes Ahmadinejad’s ethical and political crimes. The reporter then notes that this bad man will not be allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. But, the voiceover adds, Columbia will be welcoming the Iranian President on Monday! Cut to head-shaking anchor.

The clear implication of each of these sorry excuses for reporting is that Columbia University is the only place un-American enough to host this man. He’s been rejected by the NYPD at Ground Zero, but welcomed by Lee Bollinger at Columbia. This reporting fails to address the real issue of debate and diplomatic engagement, instead regurgitating right-wing talking points in sanitized form.

By NANCY HUEMER

Nancy Huemer is a guest blogger for Future Majority. She is a
currently a student at Barnard College and Media Director of the Roosevelt Institution at Columbia University.

Today, the youth of Columbia University and every other institution of higher learning in America will have the opportunity to forge a bond with the youth of Iran that could prove to be indispensable in future relations with Iran. President Ahmadinejad will be addressing students and other members of the campus community in an honest, challenged environment. University President Lee C. Bollinger’s choice to invite the Iranian executive to speak has generated countless debates, both on campus and off, and it is the right to even hold these discussions that those defending the decision are uplifting.

While Ahmadinejad has made some deeply disturbing statements, the right to free speech in our country should always prevail. Our first amendment right is one that is so often misused by those who attempt to silence only certain members of our society. It is one of the fundamental principles on which our country was founded; yet it is easy to forget that not all members of the world community have this same privilege. The students at Iranian universities will not ever have the opportunity to engage the president of their own country in the way that students at Columbia will on Monday. It is up to the Columbia community to use this chance to connect with the students of Iran.

The importance of this occasion is amplified by the current population make-up of Iran. Two-thirds of the population is under thirty, giving Iran an extremely young demographic. While the United States has been making an effort to deal with Iran in a diplomatic way recently, our tenuous relationship with the country in the past quarter century has been strained. The young population of Iran could be deeply affected by the discussion that will occur today and if the students at Columbia University can prove themselves able to contest President Ahmadinejad’s views in a constructive manner, it can open the door to the possibility for a less strained relationship in the future. The students at Columbia are some of the future leaders of America, and the large young population in Iran holds the future leaders of Iran. It is imperative that these groups are able to make a connection through this event.

Making a real attempt to open up the pathway to future progress is particularly pertinent in the Middle East. Our moral standing has been marred by our ruthless invasion of the region and there is only one way that we can have any chance for the recovery of our relationships with so many countries, including Iran. We absolutely must engage them in a civilized, diplomatic manner. It is closed minded and foolish to think that the only way to prevent countries like Iran, where our relationship with them is fragile, from becoming our enemies, is through force or threats. We can never hope to improve our desperately poor global standing if we are not willing to engage all countries and their leaders in constructive, thoughtful conversation.

Ahmadinejad is a dangerous radical man, but is a major world leader nonetheless. We must acknowledge this fact and make a more determined attempt to open up a real dialogue with Iran. At Columbia University today, students have a chance to begin this process by simply being willing to question Ahmadinejad in a diplomatic manner. This event is too significant to let pass by with out utilizing it to its full potential. I genuinely hope that the students at Columbia who have the opportunity to, can challenge Ahmadinejad in an intelligent way, and force him to respond to what we, the future leaders of the United States have to say.

Three years ago, in the wake of the 2004 election, we all had a sense that something was wrong with our democracy.

After Barry Goldwater's ignominous defeat in 1964 the conservatives had gotten organized and by 1980 were on the warpath. Since that day, it seemed, progressives had been stumbling around blindly -- either trying to obfuscate the debate, looking like wusses, or eagerly helping conservatives to undo all the progress of a fifty-year national consensus Roosevelt had begun with the New Deal.

In those heady days, Howard Dean had showed grassroots activism could counter the traditional conservative individual-donor advantage, the Rappaports were getting folks together and Rob Stein was on the road with his famous powerpoint, the Center for American Progress was forming, and works like Don't Think of an Elephant and the Death of Environmentalism essay were making the case that single-issue advocacy wasn't enough to fundamentally shift American values. Words like infrastructure, values, ideas, media, and think tanks were the bread and butter of the progressive lexicon.

At the time, I had just returned from leading a group of 135 Stanford students to knock on doors and turn out John Kerry voters in Nevada. After catching up on some long-overdue homework in a diner in Las Vegas on November 3, I returned back to my dorm room in Crothers Hall -- literally in the phallic shadow of Hoover tower -- to think about what was next.

---

At the base of that tower is a plaque explaining that it is the only federal monument to president Herbert Hoover. Small wonder. Though Hoover's ideas -- that Americans would be better without "communistic" programs like like Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the FDIC -- had been seen as widely discredited by the 1932 election and the subsequent success of the New Deal, in that one lonely tower the spark had apparently been kept alive. Now, re-popularized by organizations like the Hoover Institution, we saw plausible efforts to take apart Social Security and gut the Securities and Exchange Commission.

If organizations like Hoover had restored the dream of a do-nothing government presiding over the economic ruin of middle class America, it was clear that we needed a "Roosevelt Institution" to bring back America's problem-solving spirit.