Friday, Senate Republicans once again demonstrated tremendous foresight by blocking a bill that would have required fairly major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They did so with a filibuster, the very thing that just a few years ago they called a threat to our Democracy because when they were in the majority it was used so effectively to prevent them from doing whatever they wanted. However, the tables have turned and now the filibuster doesn't seem like such a bad thing, so they pulled it out of retirement to delay our already lagging action on global climate change until next year when the Democrats may have an even larger majority and will certainly have a more receptive Executive.
Why, though, does such a large contingent of the Republican Party, and a few Democrats, drag their feet on such an important issue? A simplistic view would be that these restrictions would raise the cost of business for companies that donate money to the campaigns of many Republicans. As satisfying as that might be to think, it is not accurate or at least not complete. This party which often espouses the superiority of the free market is sadly behind the curve here. Many of the largest corporations in the United States are already investing in so-called "green" technologies and strategies, and benefiting from them.
Toyota, a company that at one time was a joke in America next to the behemoth of General Motors, has seen its market share and reputation shoot to the top thanks in large part to their Prius and other hybrid vehicles, while GM and other American companies are falling behind worldwide because their vehicles can't meet the tighter emissions restrictions of foreign countries. At a time when gas prices are doubling, then doubling again, energy efficiency is not merely trendy, it is financially necessary. This week, Chevy announced its official plans to release the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in 2010, just a little over a decade after GM sabotaged its first electric car.
At the recent Wakefern biennial, the keynote speaker addressed the crowd of executives from ShopRite and Wakefern's other properties about the financial benefits of "going green" to great applause. The often attacked giant WalMart lowered its energy costs in some stores with as little investment as adding doors to their refrigerated displays of milk and dairy. New architecture takes greater advantage of natural light where possible and water reclamation to cut costs to the companies occupying those buildings, sometimes by as much as half.
The economic benefits of using less carbon are clear. If you want to look at the big picture, combating global warming will save us future health care costs and increased food prices as more droughts occur. For once, though, social responsibility and selfishness can come together. Using less energy means less carbon into the atmosphere, but it also means less money spent on energy. Creating eco-friendly products can cost more to produce, but the "green" label can justify a premium price which increasingly eco-conscious consumers will pay for. Multi-billion dollar companies have already discovered that doing right by the environment will also increase their profits and cut their overall costs.
So, again, why do many Republicans fight it? The free market is already rewarding companies that cut their carbon emissions voluntarily, and mandatory regulations could create long-term savings for the companies that are more reluctant to undertake such an effort. The problem is that our stock-ticker corporate culture places a premium on the here-and-now; on what the stock price is today and not what it will be in a year. No matter how much it may save later, many companies don't want to spend money now to change the way they do business, especially when a sudden change in economic fortunes could wipe out their market share. It is not enough for them to remain profitable. They want to maximize profits, which includes not spending money on carbon reclamation efforts. With these maximized profits, they have money and influence to throw around in Washington and elsewhere.
Public perception of this issue has already turned, in large part thanks to the efforts of notable celebrities, responsible companies, and Al Gore whose unlikely documentary became a box-office success. The average person, and especially the well-informed, recognize the danger posed by climate change. More to the point, though, people realize that whether or not this is caused by man or poses an immediate danger, that being environmentally responsible has real benefits not just to polar bears and the rainforest, but to us. The estimated 5-year cost for gasoline for a Hummer or similar vehicle is now equal to or greater than the initial cost of the car itself, and that's based at today's gasoline prices which will surely only go up. Farmers who rent out unused land for to energy companies to build wind turbines can get upwards of $20,000 a year in return. Homeowners who place solar panels on their roof can now sell the excess energy they collect but don't use back to the power company. Carbon-based energy becomes more expensive by the day. Renewable energy is a pay-day to anyone willing to take it.
This bill that was prevented from coming to a vote would have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Most international scientists agree that we have to cut our emissions in half by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. Had we passed this bill, it would have shown that the United States was a leader on this issue, that we were serious about combating a problem that we are largely responsible for, and it would have made us economically competitive with the rest of the world in new sustainable technologies. Instead, the buck has been passed to another Congress, another term, another election year.
The public wants change. Many companies are already making a change. When legislators block such progress, they cease to be leaders and become mere obstacles. The public is leading, and it's time that the Republican Party catch up.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Feminist Dilemma
Certainly it was about time. This year marked the first time that a female politician had been a serious challenger for the Presidency of the United States. Certainly, other women had run in the past with varying degrees of success. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, there was not merely strong support for her candidacy, but for a time it was considered a foregone conclusion that she would be the Democratic candidate and very likely would be elected. It was a momentous event, a triumph of progressive values, and, many would say, about time.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
