Iraq in Summation 2007
As the days pass the Iraq debate becomes ever more complicated and divisive. Perhaps it is best therefore to approach such a subject as Hobbes the first modern philosopher suggested by breaking it down into smaller parts and putting it back together to grasp how each aspect works upon the other.
Justification for War
In a speech given on October 7, 2002 George W. Bush outlined his justification for war by saying “the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism”. What has become of these pre-war justifications? They have been proven false in their entirety. According to the Defense Department, 9/11 commission, and Vice president Dick Cheney there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. In an interview on Meet the Press, Dick Cheney responded simply “No” when Tim Russert asked “Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? (9/11)”. He of course changed his tone once our forign policy turned toward Iraq.
In regards to Weapons of Mass destruction the Iraq survey group headed by Charles Duelfer who was appointed by the CIA reported "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003”. According to an article published by Agence France-Presse “The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed. But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set”. This information was released in a CBS interview. So if as overwhelming evidence dictates we conclude that the Bush Administrations prewar justifications have been proven false.
What is noticeably absent from the prewar debate however is the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq. We see this declared as a justification only after our invasion. For example in a speech given November 6 2003 he said, “Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations”. Perhaps with all original justifications discredited a new one had to be proposed. The proposition of this being a war for democracy becomes difficult to swallow from an administration actively supporting dictatorships elsewhere in the world like Pakistan who’s military dictator General Pervez Musharraf ardently supported the Taliban until 2001, and was ranked 7th in the top 10 worst dictators according to parade magazine. The argument that our invasion of Iraq was for democracy becomes increasingly illegitimate when you consider that because of the urgency that was created by the Bush administration no peaceful or nondirect methods of democratizing Iraq were attempted. The United States through the use of the CIA, Weapons sales, and other destabilization methods have successfully overthrown numerous governments including democratic ones in Guatemala and Chile . We must also wonder if our only reason was democratization then why Iraq. Certainly there are far worse dictators while Saddam Hussain has been accused of using nerve gas on the Kurds killing between 60-100 thousand before the war he had essentially been disarmed, and suppressed or as Dick Cheney put it in a 2001 interview on meet the press “Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point”. In contrast Omar al-Bashir of Sudan who is currently committing genocide in the region of Darfur. If we conclude by the above information that Iraq was not the security threat the Bush Administration claimed then why did we not go after the most dastardly of dictators? The level of dastardliness is of course subjective, but we must consider the motives of a government who feels compelled to drive out a dictator they consider “bottled up”. We must also consider the unfortunate reality that we do not have the means or strength to overthrow every dictatorship, and free every human being. For this reason we must be pragmatic in our foreign policy, and focus on threats to our nation. The war in Iraq has had the unfortunate side effect of exacerbating the dangers of North Korea, and Iran. Iran being a nation that actually had a direct connection to the terrorism of 9/11.
The Question of Motive
Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.
Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.
Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003.
BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002
As we understand that as of December 2002 the world community found no reason for military conflict with iraq we must ask the question why did the bush administration and many have including fellow republicans like Alan Greenspan saying __. So what are these questionable motives that have driven loyal republicans to abandon ship and declare public condemnations.
Bush administration oil backing
The earliest April 2001
Other things
So what have been the results of the war for those accused of sadistic intentions
Haliburten 900 billion
Oil companies record profits
Project for a new american century
Front line bushs war- Rumsfeld memo about finding connection to iraq
Cheney visits to CIA- find source
Negative byproducts
Now having defined the illegitimacy of the Bush administrations justifications for war we have a right to be angry at the negative repercussions of this war which is at best a horrible mistake, and at worst criminal as the type of preemptive strike we committed is a war crime according to the UN charter. These negative repercussions are immense and numerable. The byproducts of this war have been first the deaths of 3000 and rising American servicemen and 100 Iraqis a day according to historian Howard Zinn. In addition, we have seen the break down of multilateralism, world opinion of the United States turned on its head, and an exasperation of terrorism. According to the United States institute for peace “By occupying Iraq, the United States has given al Qaeda a major opportunity to drive home its argument that the "leader of world infidelity" seeks to destroy Islam and subjugate its believers”. The war has also taken United States resources away from fighting the forces which were actually responsible for 9/11. We see now that the Taliban is beginning to regain power in Afghanistan. The overwhelming amount of resources which must be dedicated to Iraq make it impossible for us to coerce Iran into compliance with any real power, and North Korea a recorded sponsor of terrorism has been able to acquire Nuclear weapons because of our diverted attention.
“A New Way Forward”
The question of the legitimacy of this war becomes irrelevant when we consider that we are already entangled in this quagmire. We must move forward in the most logical, and beneficial way possible. The Bush administration has failed to do that. They have maintained a failed policy for over two years now using the rhetorical line “stay the course”. Following the 2006 Midterm elections demonstrating the countries frustration with the war George W. Bush was forced to make a change. After the great public debate over what path to take in an Iraq which had fallen into sectarian violence, and become a haven for Al Quide the commander and chief determined that his new policy which he described as a “new way forward” would be nothing more than the increase of troops in Iraq by 21,500, and some vague benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet with no consequences if they fail. Military leaders in Iraq at the time had declared that there is not a military solution in Iraq "Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, called the military's efforts 'the Pillsbury Doughboy idea' - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere” Despite the advice of experts on the ground the president decided on an exclusively military action to remedy the situation. The Washington Post reported that Bush’s plan “has been met with opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who worry that a short-term increase in troops would not support long-term US goals in Iraq and would ultimately help the insurgency. This troop surge is not a new idea; the United States military has had four troop surges that year some of which were larger in number. Now many point to decreasing violence in Iraq as a sign that the surge was a success. This is a difficult pill to swallow as violence levels remain high, and much of the decrease in violence can be attributed to the anbar awakening which occured prior to the surge.(need source) Finally, despite these positive changes no further political compromises have occured which could ensure a lasting peace between the divided ethnic groups of Iraq.. On the other side of this debate you have Senators like Barak Obama who promote what they call a “phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq”. Barak believes that the United States presence insulates the Shiite dominated government from coming to compromises on divisive issues like oil distribution. His logic is sound, but his conclusion that simply redeploying troops will solve the problem is flawed. While the United States military can not have a sustained effect in curbing the violence between sectarian factions we can't expect any government to establish any real policy changes in a nation in such chaos.. Unfortunately, it seems that our honored leaders can only think in extremes. The options being proposed are either escalate or leave. What this nation needs is fresh thinking, and a truly new way forward.
A Modest Proposal
One Senator in Washington is coming forward with a truly creative and progressive solution for the dilemma in Iraq. Senator Joseph Bidden has proposed a partitioning of Iraq along ethnic lines. The president had promoted this war on the basis of democracy. In that spirit perhaps we should look to the Iraqi people for a solution. In a nonbinding referendum 98% of Kurds voted to have their own nation. In addition, in the past Iraqi elections over 90 percent of all ethnic groups voted for their individual ethnic political parties. In addition, the constitution which was created is essentially a road map toward separation. It allows for individual armies and does not give the government the ability to tax.
Looking at examples historically in which warring ethnic groups have been forced together artificially by hegemonic forces we see that it only leads to extreme bloodshed. In fact the two most recent genocides in Rwanda and Sudan have both been caused by warring ethnic groups forced into one country by the British Empire.
I am not proposing that if we allow sovereignty to the three sects in Iraq that violence will cease, but the three governments will be able to maintain themselves without United States force stemming the ever growing tide of discontent. If we look at India and Pakistan the two nations certainly have a volatile relationship, but they have two sovereign governments which sustain themselves, and can take care of their people. The United States troops in this scenario can have an impact in aiding each ethnic group with developing infusructure with out constant violence, and can have a hope of returning home in a reasonable amount of time, and can spend there term of duty in an exponentially less deadly environment.
Regarding the world community
The Iraq Study Group report suggests that the United States “engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.” While a dialouge with Iran is essential to avoid the kind of international misunderstandings we saw during the Cold War “Iran has no incentive to appear as a deus ex machina to enable America to escape its embarrassments” according to Henry Kissinger. Therefore unless we can provide some leverage over Iran we have little hope of securing their compliance. It is true that Iran would not benefit from absolute sectarian violence in Iraq as it could lead to an expansion of sectarian violence which would destabilize the entire region according the ISG, but there are varying levels of U.S. failure some of which could benefit Tehran. In summation, without something to pressure Iran it is unlikely positive help can be garnered from them.
This However, should not discourage the United States from pursuing help from other surrounding states like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordon who can exert pressure on forces in Iraq to move forward as even if we do partition Iraq Oil distribution a very decisive issue will have to be decided on.
In conclusion
A combination of partioning Iraq and negotiating pressure from neighboring nations to stem sectarian violence in my humble opinion is the most logical step forward.
There are no good options left in Iraq only ones which are better then others. This is simply a modest proposal for a real change, and a positive way forward.
Bush, George W.. "Remarks by the President on Iraq." Cincinnati Museum Center- Cincinnati Union Terminal. Cinncinati, Ohio. 07 Oct 2002.
Eggen, Dan. No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says." Washington Post [Washington D.C.]June 16 2004
Keen, Thomas H.. United States. National Commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States.9/11 Commission Report. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004.
"Dick Cheney Interview." Meet The Press. Tim Russert. NBC, New York. Sept. 16 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
"Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview." The Laura Ingraham Show. Nancy Collins. 01 Aug 2003.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html
Duelfer , Charles. United States. Iraq Survey Group.Iraq Survey Group Final Report. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2005.
Kniazkov, Maxim. CIA Warned Bush Of No WMD In Iraq." Agence France-Presse [Washington]24 Apr. 2006
Bush, George W.. "President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East ." 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. Washington D.C.. November 6, 2003 .
Wellechinsky, David. "Meet the Contenders: Dictators 11 to 20." Parade Magazine 01 Jan 2006:
Cullather, Nicholas. United States. Central Intelligence Agency.The United States and Guatemala 1952-1954. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994.
United States. National Security Council.Memorandum of NSC Meeting- Chilie. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.
Zinn, Howard. A power governments cant supress. City Lights Publisher, 2007.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Public Policy and the Stem Cell debate
The Stem Cell debate is incredibly divisive within Washington, and Republican lawmakers with the support of President Bush have essentially managed to create a legislative stalemate on the issue. As I will discuss in this paper since 2001 and the onset of the stem cell debate not much as been accomplished for this reason. Key policy actors have been very vocal in a variety of new mediums voicing opposition and support for stem cell legislation, and even celebrities like Michael J. Fox, and Christopher Reeves have chimed in supporting stem cell research. The irony of this legislative debate is that according to ABC news the public is fairly united voicing in favor of stem cell research by a 2 to 1 margin. It is for this reason that Democrats have begun to use this platform topic as a wedge issue with voters during election time, and perhaps part of why we have seen a Democratic resurgence in the last few years. Throughout this text I will analyze the varying statements of key policy actors summarizing their positions in print media, and non print media. I will then analyze if and how the stem cell debate echoes the public policy themes which we have worked on in class throughout the semester, and close the paper with a statement of my personal predictions on where the stem cell debate is going in the coming years.
I would like to begin by recounting the brief history of the stem cell debate as it has existed in the legislative branch. The issue came to the forefront of politics in 2001 with President Bush’s request that the National Institute of Health review its funding guidelines. He then outlawed any federal funding of Stem Cell research, but came to a compromise allowing the use of a few dozen lines of embryonic stem cells already in existence. This was due to resistance by lead congressional Republicans Bill Frist, and Orin Hatch. In 2005 a bill proposed by Senator Harry Reid entitled The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill passed the congress and was promptly vetoed by President Bush. An identical bill passed through congress this year, and President Bush is expected to Veto it as well. As this clearly shows the issue has become one which is focused on elections as legislatively it is deadlocked unless congress can muster the 2/3rds majority needed to overturn the presidential veto.
It is at this point that I would like to begin to summarize some of the positions taken by key policy actors in various print media sources. As I mentioned in my introduction the Democrats have united on the issue of Stem Cell research each voicing their own unique justifications for their support. I would first like to discuss congressional quarterlies like Roll Call, and the Hill which portray the Stem Cell issue as it exists in Washington. An article published in the hill in January of 2007 describes the extent to which the notion of stem cells has become a wedge issue for Democrats. It even notes how “two Republican House members with tough races ahead changed their views to favor an embryonic stem cell research bill”. Not all people are sold on the notion that Stem Cells research can garner or take votes from you depending on your position. As former rep. Talent noted in the same article “the issue probably "cost me votes in some places and got me votes in other places". However it can’t be denied that Republicans are flailing as Democrats stand steady on this particular issue. As a January 22 article in the Washington Post states researches are becoming increasingly critical of the Bush Administration, and those who oppose Stem Cell Research. These articles really characterize the issue in a non-partisan manner.
The question that still needs to be answered is who are the people pursuing these issues. In an article from The Hill on January 17th they describe the impact of one of the most important and famous Republican Senators Bill Frist. He is one of the conservatives who is dividing Republicans. As the party was trying to come together he came out supporting an increase in federal funding for Stem Cell research. This is a logical position considering his background as a heart surgeon, but makes it difficult for republicans to present a united message on the issue, similar to the difficulty Democrats had faced on Iraq.
I would now like to address the positions taken on the issue by Conservative and Liberal sources. Starting on the Conservative end of the spectrum you can see even in the media that lack of a cohesive message. If you look at a Wall Street Journal article published in May of 2005 around the time of the first legislation on Stem Cell research in congress you see that this particular author is trying to portray the Bush Administration as not actually banning stem cell research. The article states “there’s no Bush “ban” and research money is flowing. The fact is that this individual is right money is still flowing 566 million dollars according the author. The interesting thing is that these conservatives are not denouncing the policy of Stem Cell research as abhorrent like some of their colleagues, but arguing that in some way they aren’t opposing it. Contrast that standpoint with an article from Michael Fumento.com written by Michael Fumento in which he attempts to attack claims that adult stem cells ones that Republicans do not oppose are useless. He compares this standpoint with the notion that “Electricity appears worthless for illumination”. He continues in the article to try and prove the point that we don’t need embryonic stem cells, so the morality question can be avoided. In addition, An article published in the National Review on April of 2002 describes how the media is at fault for making the public believe that embryonic stem cells are needed. In actuality according to the author Wesley J. Smith Adult Stem cells continue to be incredibly successful. This is starkly different from the first article which claimed that President Bush was not banning Stem cell research at all, instead these authors are trying to justify that decision in a non moral way.
With all this disagreement within congress and in the conservative media, it would seem that Republicans were oblivious to what is going on. However, an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Stem Cell issue: Republicans Undoing” demonstrates that the conservative media is aware of the destructive power of the stem cell division. The article quotes a long time Republican Mr. Doyle saying “I think the Republican party is in the Dark ages on this”. That viewpoint is reticent of many other moderates throughout the country who feel alienated by the Bush administration’s policy toward stem cells.
While the conservative media is fostering the notion that stem cells are not necessary Democratic media is touting the opposite with equal fervor. In fact Democrats are so concrete in their message that an article in The Nation published in November of 2005 has skipped over entirely the debate over the ethics of Stem cell research, and instead focuses on protecting the rights of women donating eggs for the embryos used.
In addition, if Republicans are aware that the issue is hurting them so is the liberal media. An article in the Washington Post titled “Stem Cell debate puts Bush between a rock and a hard place” illustrates this clearly. Even Arlen Specter according to the article compared Bush to those who opposed Columbus, or rejected electricity, vaccines, or rail travel.
Policy Maker Name
Policy Maker Party
Policymaker Office
Media Appearance
Date
Senator Chris Smith
R
Senator from New Jersey
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Gordon Smith
R
Senator from Oregon
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Arlen Spector
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
Face the Nation
6/13/04
Diane DeGette
D
Representative from Colorado
News Hour with Jim Lehrer
8/9/04
John Edwards
D
Democratic Presidential Candidate
Larry King Live
10/25/04
Ken Mehlman
R
Chairman of Republican Party
Meet the Press
6/5/05
Senator Rick Santorum
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
George Stephanopoulos
7/31/05
Joshua Bolton
R
White House Chief of Staff
Meet the Press
6/19/06
I would now like to discuss the way that key policy makers have used the non print media to portray their message. As you can see by the dates in the above table the issue has been debated fairly steadily from 2001 when George Bush first restricted research up till the present. So what is each side saying, and how are they defending their position. Republicans are being interviewed coming in for stem cell research almost as much as they come in against it. This again hints at the party division which seems to characterize the Republican party regarding this issue.
The earliest interview I found took place between two republican senators one for stem cell research, and the other opposed. Senator Smith from Oregon argues that most people are in favor of stem cell research. He says that the feel this way because they want to be “pro-life”, and part of that is caring for the living. He goes on to say that he views the stem cell debate as a difference of opinion on “when life begins”. He argues that since 2/3rds of fertilized embryos never implant in the mother’s womb, that life has not really begun. On the reverse side Senator Chris Smith from New Jersey argues that these embryos are life basically because they have the potential to grow into a baby, and we don’t have the right to take stem cells from them.
As the issue progressed the next interview I found was around 2004 as the presidential election approached Democrats began representing their view on Stem Cell research as it is commonly believe to be a wedge issue for the party. In addition, they were preparing support for the bill being introduced in the house the following year. The first interview of significance was Representative Diane DeGette who introduced the house stem cell bill. In her interview with NewsHour she attacks the presidents stem cell policy saying the “policy was based on politics rather than science”. She argues that her legislation is justified because it would allow research on embryos made with invitro fertilization. These embryos of course if not used for research would simply be discarded. She argues that lives could be saved, and should be. The next interview occurred just a couple of months later on Larry King live with the Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Edwards largely mimics Representative DeGette’s argument that these embryos are already being made, and they should be used toward the greater good to save possibly thousands of lives. What is notably missing from these interviews is any discussion about the morality of throwing away embryos, or using them for research. This is perhaps because policy makers see the pro-life/pro-choice debate as a fairly intractable issue which people have strong opinions about that they won’t be swayed from.
One of the most fascinating policymakers in the Stem cell debate because of his precarious position Senator Arlen Specter was interviewed in 2004 on Face the Nation. It was on this program that he believes the true pro-life position is to take the 400,000 embryos that are frozen and will be thrown away and use them. He refutes Dr. James Dobson’s claim that congress is twisting the issue by pointing out that his subcommittee has had 14 hearings on the issue and has compiled overwhelming evidence that it can help cure Parkinson’s, and juvenile diabetes. The position of Arlen Specter is fascinating because he is a supporter of the Bush Administration on many issues, but as the head of the committee that deals with stem cell issues he has taken a stand against them.
The final interview of significance which I found in my research is the interview of Joshua Bolton, White House Chief of Staff in the summer of 2006. In this interview the white house spokesperson defended the president’s longtime stance on stem cells, and ensured that it will not change. The Bush Administration has become a fascinating road block to what has become an issue which could easily pass congress, and which the majority of the public supports. Regardless as these interviews have demonstrated there are still strong parties on both sides who each of legitimate defenses of their positions
The topic of Stem Cell research is a unique one for a variety of reasons, and doesn’t always follow the themes that we have discussed in class. However in key areas it does fit quite well. In class we discussed looking at public policy from a contextualist perspective or approach. In applying this to the Stem Cell debate you see that the Republican perspective is quite logical considering their base. The Republican base is generally considered to be of two parts, first traditional conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and free enterprise, and the religious right who believe in family values, moral uprightness, and a right to life. With this kind of background it makes sense that Fiscal conservatives may find themselves on the side of stem cell research because of its practicality for business, and the health industry while the religious right would take a strong stance against it because of its moral ambiguity. Looking at the Republican party contextually one could almost predict the split that has occurred on this issue.
Another theme of class that I found interestingly applicable is our discussion of committee positions and their influence on public policy. In regards to the Stem Cell debate I found that Arlen Specter who formally chaired the Labor, Health and Human services committee had a very unique role to play in this debate. He is often a chief mediator between congress and the Bush Administration, and with congresses increasing alienation from congress this position becomes all the more precarious for the Senator. As a result of his position we often see Sen. Specter riding the fence on issues particularly Stem Cells. As I mentioned in the portion of my paper regarding televised media Specter has come out in interviews in favor of Stem Cell Research, but has always towed a careful line not to offend party leadership or the Bush Administration.
However issues like partisanship seem almost insignificant to the debate of Stem Cell research. A key theme to class seemed to be an increasingly partisan congress, and government. While on the whole this seems to be a true assertion, it certainly is not in the case of Stem Cell research. My question in this regards is whether this is truly an issue where Republicans and Democrats will step across party lines or if this bipartisanship is simply the result of an internal split within the base of the Republican Party. In consideration of where I see the Stem Cell debate heading, I believe it is clear that the public is coming to a consensus on the issue. Even congress has come to a clear conclusion by passing to pieces of legislation to lift restriction. However, all these unanimity cannot succeed in actual change because of fierce resistance by certain individuals in congress, and the Bush Administration, but as the 2008 presidential election begins to come under way I believe we will see this as a focal point, or a wedge issue for the Democratic candidates to undermine the Republican candidate. It is my contention that a candidate will not win the 2008 presidential election without coming out in support of Stem Cell research, and as a result we will see very soon comprehensive legislation passed allowing for expanded stem cell research.
In conclusion a divided republican party has created a wedge issue for Democrats, and a point of focus which they can capitalize on to take the presidency in 2008. This divisive issue has become a non issue for 2/3 of Americans. The question is how key players in Washington will respond to the opinions of the majority.
Works Cited
"George Stephanopoulos Interviews Sen. Rick Santorum." Think Progress. Sen. Rick Santorum. ABC, 7/31/2005.
"Interview with John Edwards." Larry King Live. John Edwards. CNN, 10/25/2004.
"Josh Bolten, Tom Ricks." Meet the Press. Josh Bolton. MSNBC, 7/23/2006.
"Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republcian Party." Meet the Press. Ken Mehlman. MSNBC, 6/5/2005.
"Senator Arlen Specter." Face the Nation. Arlen Specter. CBS, 7/13/2004.
"Should the Federal Government Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Crossfire. Senator Chris and Gordon Smith . CNN, 7/19/2001.
"Stem- Cell Lines." The Wall Street Journal (2005):
"Stem Cells, The White House And Rankled Researchers." Washington Post (2007):
"U.S. Representative Diane DeGette." NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. U.S. Representative Diane DeGette. PBS, 8/9/2004.
Allen, Jonathan. "GOP hopefuls getting more time to weight stem cell vote." The Hill 10/25/2005.
Blake, Aaron. "Democrats seeking to drive stem cell wedge in Minn., N.H.." The Hill (2007):
Bolton, Alexander. "Senate GOP begins repair of messaging." The Hill (2007):
Calmes, Jackie. "Stem- Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing?." The Wall Street Journal (2006):
Fumento, Michael. "Celling Lies: More Spurious Stem Cell Claims." Fumento.com 9/25/2002 4/15/2007.
Galpern, and Darnovsky, Emily, Marcy. "Eggs vs. Ethics in Stem cell debate." The Nation 11/29/2005 4/16/2007.
Langer, Gary. "Public Backs Stem Cell Research: Most Say Government Should Fund Use of Embryos." ABC news 6/26/2001 4/16/2007
Noah, Timothy. "Party of Stem Cells." Slate magazine 8/3/2004 4/17/2007
Pickler, Nedra. "House Fails to Override Stem cell vote." Washington Post 7/19/2006 4/16/2007.
Smith, Wesley. "Spinning Stem Cells." National Review (2002):
I would like to begin by recounting the brief history of the stem cell debate as it has existed in the legislative branch. The issue came to the forefront of politics in 2001 with President Bush’s request that the National Institute of Health review its funding guidelines. He then outlawed any federal funding of Stem Cell research, but came to a compromise allowing the use of a few dozen lines of embryonic stem cells already in existence. This was due to resistance by lead congressional Republicans Bill Frist, and Orin Hatch. In 2005 a bill proposed by Senator Harry Reid entitled The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill passed the congress and was promptly vetoed by President Bush. An identical bill passed through congress this year, and President Bush is expected to Veto it as well. As this clearly shows the issue has become one which is focused on elections as legislatively it is deadlocked unless congress can muster the 2/3rds majority needed to overturn the presidential veto.
It is at this point that I would like to begin to summarize some of the positions taken by key policy actors in various print media sources. As I mentioned in my introduction the Democrats have united on the issue of Stem Cell research each voicing their own unique justifications for their support. I would first like to discuss congressional quarterlies like Roll Call, and the Hill which portray the Stem Cell issue as it exists in Washington. An article published in the hill in January of 2007 describes the extent to which the notion of stem cells has become a wedge issue for Democrats. It even notes how “two Republican House members with tough races ahead changed their views to favor an embryonic stem cell research bill”. Not all people are sold on the notion that Stem Cells research can garner or take votes from you depending on your position. As former rep. Talent noted in the same article “the issue probably "cost me votes in some places and got me votes in other places". However it can’t be denied that Republicans are flailing as Democrats stand steady on this particular issue. As a January 22 article in the Washington Post states researches are becoming increasingly critical of the Bush Administration, and those who oppose Stem Cell Research. These articles really characterize the issue in a non-partisan manner.
The question that still needs to be answered is who are the people pursuing these issues. In an article from The Hill on January 17th they describe the impact of one of the most important and famous Republican Senators Bill Frist. He is one of the conservatives who is dividing Republicans. As the party was trying to come together he came out supporting an increase in federal funding for Stem Cell research. This is a logical position considering his background as a heart surgeon, but makes it difficult for republicans to present a united message on the issue, similar to the difficulty Democrats had faced on Iraq.
I would now like to address the positions taken on the issue by Conservative and Liberal sources. Starting on the Conservative end of the spectrum you can see even in the media that lack of a cohesive message. If you look at a Wall Street Journal article published in May of 2005 around the time of the first legislation on Stem Cell research in congress you see that this particular author is trying to portray the Bush Administration as not actually banning stem cell research. The article states “there’s no Bush “ban” and research money is flowing. The fact is that this individual is right money is still flowing 566 million dollars according the author. The interesting thing is that these conservatives are not denouncing the policy of Stem Cell research as abhorrent like some of their colleagues, but arguing that in some way they aren’t opposing it. Contrast that standpoint with an article from Michael Fumento.com written by Michael Fumento in which he attempts to attack claims that adult stem cells ones that Republicans do not oppose are useless. He compares this standpoint with the notion that “Electricity appears worthless for illumination”. He continues in the article to try and prove the point that we don’t need embryonic stem cells, so the morality question can be avoided. In addition, An article published in the National Review on April of 2002 describes how the media is at fault for making the public believe that embryonic stem cells are needed. In actuality according to the author Wesley J. Smith Adult Stem cells continue to be incredibly successful. This is starkly different from the first article which claimed that President Bush was not banning Stem cell research at all, instead these authors are trying to justify that decision in a non moral way.
With all this disagreement within congress and in the conservative media, it would seem that Republicans were oblivious to what is going on. However, an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Stem Cell issue: Republicans Undoing” demonstrates that the conservative media is aware of the destructive power of the stem cell division. The article quotes a long time Republican Mr. Doyle saying “I think the Republican party is in the Dark ages on this”. That viewpoint is reticent of many other moderates throughout the country who feel alienated by the Bush administration’s policy toward stem cells.
While the conservative media is fostering the notion that stem cells are not necessary Democratic media is touting the opposite with equal fervor. In fact Democrats are so concrete in their message that an article in The Nation published in November of 2005 has skipped over entirely the debate over the ethics of Stem cell research, and instead focuses on protecting the rights of women donating eggs for the embryos used.
In addition, if Republicans are aware that the issue is hurting them so is the liberal media. An article in the Washington Post titled “Stem Cell debate puts Bush between a rock and a hard place” illustrates this clearly. Even Arlen Specter according to the article compared Bush to those who opposed Columbus, or rejected electricity, vaccines, or rail travel.
Policy Maker Name
Policy Maker Party
Policymaker Office
Media Appearance
Date
Senator Chris Smith
R
Senator from New Jersey
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Gordon Smith
R
Senator from Oregon
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Arlen Spector
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
Face the Nation
6/13/04
Diane DeGette
D
Representative from Colorado
News Hour with Jim Lehrer
8/9/04
John Edwards
D
Democratic Presidential Candidate
Larry King Live
10/25/04
Ken Mehlman
R
Chairman of Republican Party
Meet the Press
6/5/05
Senator Rick Santorum
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
George Stephanopoulos
7/31/05
Joshua Bolton
R
White House Chief of Staff
Meet the Press
6/19/06
I would now like to discuss the way that key policy makers have used the non print media to portray their message. As you can see by the dates in the above table the issue has been debated fairly steadily from 2001 when George Bush first restricted research up till the present. So what is each side saying, and how are they defending their position. Republicans are being interviewed coming in for stem cell research almost as much as they come in against it. This again hints at the party division which seems to characterize the Republican party regarding this issue.
The earliest interview I found took place between two republican senators one for stem cell research, and the other opposed. Senator Smith from Oregon argues that most people are in favor of stem cell research. He says that the feel this way because they want to be “pro-life”, and part of that is caring for the living. He goes on to say that he views the stem cell debate as a difference of opinion on “when life begins”. He argues that since 2/3rds of fertilized embryos never implant in the mother’s womb, that life has not really begun. On the reverse side Senator Chris Smith from New Jersey argues that these embryos are life basically because they have the potential to grow into a baby, and we don’t have the right to take stem cells from them.
As the issue progressed the next interview I found was around 2004 as the presidential election approached Democrats began representing their view on Stem Cell research as it is commonly believe to be a wedge issue for the party. In addition, they were preparing support for the bill being introduced in the house the following year. The first interview of significance was Representative Diane DeGette who introduced the house stem cell bill. In her interview with NewsHour she attacks the presidents stem cell policy saying the “policy was based on politics rather than science”. She argues that her legislation is justified because it would allow research on embryos made with invitro fertilization. These embryos of course if not used for research would simply be discarded. She argues that lives could be saved, and should be. The next interview occurred just a couple of months later on Larry King live with the Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Edwards largely mimics Representative DeGette’s argument that these embryos are already being made, and they should be used toward the greater good to save possibly thousands of lives. What is notably missing from these interviews is any discussion about the morality of throwing away embryos, or using them for research. This is perhaps because policy makers see the pro-life/pro-choice debate as a fairly intractable issue which people have strong opinions about that they won’t be swayed from.
One of the most fascinating policymakers in the Stem cell debate because of his precarious position Senator Arlen Specter was interviewed in 2004 on Face the Nation. It was on this program that he believes the true pro-life position is to take the 400,000 embryos that are frozen and will be thrown away and use them. He refutes Dr. James Dobson’s claim that congress is twisting the issue by pointing out that his subcommittee has had 14 hearings on the issue and has compiled overwhelming evidence that it can help cure Parkinson’s, and juvenile diabetes. The position of Arlen Specter is fascinating because he is a supporter of the Bush Administration on many issues, but as the head of the committee that deals with stem cell issues he has taken a stand against them.
The final interview of significance which I found in my research is the interview of Joshua Bolton, White House Chief of Staff in the summer of 2006. In this interview the white house spokesperson defended the president’s longtime stance on stem cells, and ensured that it will not change. The Bush Administration has become a fascinating road block to what has become an issue which could easily pass congress, and which the majority of the public supports. Regardless as these interviews have demonstrated there are still strong parties on both sides who each of legitimate defenses of their positions
The topic of Stem Cell research is a unique one for a variety of reasons, and doesn’t always follow the themes that we have discussed in class. However in key areas it does fit quite well. In class we discussed looking at public policy from a contextualist perspective or approach. In applying this to the Stem Cell debate you see that the Republican perspective is quite logical considering their base. The Republican base is generally considered to be of two parts, first traditional conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and free enterprise, and the religious right who believe in family values, moral uprightness, and a right to life. With this kind of background it makes sense that Fiscal conservatives may find themselves on the side of stem cell research because of its practicality for business, and the health industry while the religious right would take a strong stance against it because of its moral ambiguity. Looking at the Republican party contextually one could almost predict the split that has occurred on this issue.
Another theme of class that I found interestingly applicable is our discussion of committee positions and their influence on public policy. In regards to the Stem Cell debate I found that Arlen Specter who formally chaired the Labor, Health and Human services committee had a very unique role to play in this debate. He is often a chief mediator between congress and the Bush Administration, and with congresses increasing alienation from congress this position becomes all the more precarious for the Senator. As a result of his position we often see Sen. Specter riding the fence on issues particularly Stem Cells. As I mentioned in the portion of my paper regarding televised media Specter has come out in interviews in favor of Stem Cell Research, but has always towed a careful line not to offend party leadership or the Bush Administration.
However issues like partisanship seem almost insignificant to the debate of Stem Cell research. A key theme to class seemed to be an increasingly partisan congress, and government. While on the whole this seems to be a true assertion, it certainly is not in the case of Stem Cell research. My question in this regards is whether this is truly an issue where Republicans and Democrats will step across party lines or if this bipartisanship is simply the result of an internal split within the base of the Republican Party. In consideration of where I see the Stem Cell debate heading, I believe it is clear that the public is coming to a consensus on the issue. Even congress has come to a clear conclusion by passing to pieces of legislation to lift restriction. However, all these unanimity cannot succeed in actual change because of fierce resistance by certain individuals in congress, and the Bush Administration, but as the 2008 presidential election begins to come under way I believe we will see this as a focal point, or a wedge issue for the Democratic candidates to undermine the Republican candidate. It is my contention that a candidate will not win the 2008 presidential election without coming out in support of Stem Cell research, and as a result we will see very soon comprehensive legislation passed allowing for expanded stem cell research.
In conclusion a divided republican party has created a wedge issue for Democrats, and a point of focus which they can capitalize on to take the presidency in 2008. This divisive issue has become a non issue for 2/3 of Americans. The question is how key players in Washington will respond to the opinions of the majority.
Works Cited
"George Stephanopoulos Interviews Sen. Rick Santorum." Think Progress. Sen. Rick Santorum. ABC, 7/31/2005.
"Interview with John Edwards." Larry King Live. John Edwards. CNN, 10/25/2004.
"Josh Bolten, Tom Ricks." Meet the Press. Josh Bolton. MSNBC, 7/23/2006.
"Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republcian Party." Meet the Press. Ken Mehlman. MSNBC, 6/5/2005.
"Senator Arlen Specter." Face the Nation. Arlen Specter. CBS, 7/13/2004.
"Should the Federal Government Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Crossfire. Senator Chris and Gordon Smith . CNN, 7/19/2001.
"Stem- Cell Lines." The Wall Street Journal (2005):
"Stem Cells, The White House And Rankled Researchers." Washington Post (2007):
"U.S. Representative Diane DeGette." NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. U.S. Representative Diane DeGette. PBS, 8/9/2004.
Allen, Jonathan. "GOP hopefuls getting more time to weight stem cell vote." The Hill 10/25/2005
Blake, Aaron. "Democrats seeking to drive stem cell wedge in Minn., N.H.." The Hill (2007):
Bolton, Alexander. "Senate GOP begins repair of messaging." The Hill (2007):
Calmes, Jackie. "Stem- Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing?." The Wall Street Journal (2006):
Fumento, Michael. "Celling Lies: More Spurious Stem Cell Claims." Fumento.com 9/25/2002 4/15/2007
Galpern, and Darnovsky, Emily, Marcy. "Eggs vs. Ethics in Stem cell debate." The Nation 11/29/2005 4/16/2007
Langer, Gary. "Public Backs Stem Cell Research: Most Say Government Should Fund Use of Embryos." ABC news 6/26/2001 4/16/2007
Noah, Timothy. "Party of Stem Cells." Slate magazine 8/3/2004 4/17/2007
Pickler, Nedra. "House Fails to Override Stem cell vote." Washington Post 7/19/2006 4/16/2007
Smith, Wesley. "Spinning Stem Cells." National Review (2002):
Bringing Free Speech Back
Benjamin Franklin once wrote “Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. This is a message which just like many periods in U.S. history has fallen out of favor. Assaults against First Amendment rights go from as high up as the National Security Agency and as far down as the school administration at Woodlan Junior-Senior High School in Woodburn, Indiana who fired Amy Sorrell, the newspaper advisor there, for allowing a Sophomore to publish an article defending homosexual rights. .
These attacks are all the more alarming considering the findings of J-Ideas, a Ball State organization created to foster excellence in high school journalism. J-Ideas discovered that student apathy and ignorance of their first amendment rights, including freedom of the press, has reached alarming levels. Their study on the “Future of the First Amendment” revealed that 1/3 of high school students believe the First Amendment goes too far, fifty percent believe that the government can censor the internet, and only 27% of report that they even think about the first amendment.
I have thus far painted a bleak picture, but have no fear the First Amendment warriors at J- Ideas including director Warren Watson are fighting back through education. They have released a variety of educational tools for teachers who like so many still believe that First Amendment education is a great priority. These tools include coaching sheets for aspiring journalists and an impressive DVD full of curriculum aids for teachers including the history and background on the First Amendment, a panel discussion with constitutional experts, discussion questions of the Bill of rights and much more. This curriculum aid recently won a 2007 Silver Telly, an award given for the best local and regional video and film productions.
This is a noble cause but is dependent on teachers like myself to embrace the importance of a free press, and freedom of speech for the preservation of Democracy. The historical proof exists to show that a Democracy built without constitutional principles like a Bill of Rights and the rule of law are doomed to a quick and often bloody death whether it is the French Revolution, or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Throughout American history government has challenged First Amendment rights, but deep rooted institutions have kept our liberal heritage alive. Now the turbulent events of our time challenge once again our rights as Americans. It will be up to history to judge how we respond, but thanks to J-ideas the resources are available.
While the battle for student minds can be fought in the schools mass media can play an important role in spreading the true importance of constitutional freedoms in this country. The opposing viewpoint which plays on the fears of the public is getting a great deal of press, but it is all too rare to hear the potent arguments of free speech advocates on the air today. During the Red Scare it was Edward R. Murrow who spoke up, and during the 1960’s it was radical journalist I.F. Stone, but today major media outlets are concentrated in the hands of very few. Even in the 1960’s there were a large number of family owned newspapers, and media outlets were interested in ratings not the welfare of the massive business organizations that they are a part of like the Time Warner or Disney corporation. Today we need new outlets of expression, and I hope they are coming.
These attacks are all the more alarming considering the findings of J-Ideas, a Ball State organization created to foster excellence in high school journalism. J-Ideas discovered that student apathy and ignorance of their first amendment rights, including freedom of the press, has reached alarming levels. Their study on the “Future of the First Amendment” revealed that 1/3 of high school students believe the First Amendment goes too far, fifty percent believe that the government can censor the internet, and only 27% of report that they even think about the first amendment.
I have thus far painted a bleak picture, but have no fear the First Amendment warriors at J- Ideas including director Warren Watson are fighting back through education. They have released a variety of educational tools for teachers who like so many still believe that First Amendment education is a great priority. These tools include coaching sheets for aspiring journalists and an impressive DVD full of curriculum aids for teachers including the history and background on the First Amendment, a panel discussion with constitutional experts, discussion questions of the Bill of rights and much more. This curriculum aid recently won a 2007 Silver Telly, an award given for the best local and regional video and film productions.
This is a noble cause but is dependent on teachers like myself to embrace the importance of a free press, and freedom of speech for the preservation of Democracy. The historical proof exists to show that a Democracy built without constitutional principles like a Bill of Rights and the rule of law are doomed to a quick and often bloody death whether it is the French Revolution, or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Throughout American history government has challenged First Amendment rights, but deep rooted institutions have kept our liberal heritage alive. Now the turbulent events of our time challenge once again our rights as Americans. It will be up to history to judge how we respond, but thanks to J-ideas the resources are available.
While the battle for student minds can be fought in the schools mass media can play an important role in spreading the true importance of constitutional freedoms in this country. The opposing viewpoint which plays on the fears of the public is getting a great deal of press, but it is all too rare to hear the potent arguments of free speech advocates on the air today. During the Red Scare it was Edward R. Murrow who spoke up, and during the 1960’s it was radical journalist I.F. Stone, but today major media outlets are concentrated in the hands of very few. Even in the 1960’s there were a large number of family owned newspapers, and media outlets were interested in ratings not the welfare of the massive business organizations that they are a part of like the Time Warner or Disney corporation. Today we need new outlets of expression, and I hope they are coming.
Collective and Open Technology: An answer to museum collecting constraints
I. Introduction
Over the last forty years museums have been experiencing a paradigm shift and giving creative authority to more departments within the museum beyond just the curator. Through very deliberate efforts by museum educators and exhibit designers, significant change has evolved in the goals of the museum. Nowhere is this more apparent than in science centers like the Saint Louis Science Center was transformed from a natural history museum to a more hands-on, education led museum. Increased authority of museum educators has not come without tradeoffs. Currently, the thousands of collection items which once adorned the walls of the museum now sit in the back rooms of the Taylor Science Community Center; a smaller building located a street away from the main museum building. These collections are priceless items which include giant crystals worth tens of thousands of dollars and innumerable animal remains which are unlike any others in existence. Unfortunately, these collections remain closed to the public and in some cases entirely uncataloged. The Saint Louis Science Center is not alone in this phenomenon. Science centers have caught on across the nation, in many cases, at the expense of the traditional object based natural history museum and their collections. This in some cases has led to decreased care for collections, and certainly a closing off of collections from public view.
Part of the solution to this dilemma may come through technology. In recent years the field of collections management has seen several new innovations in technology from web based cataloging to open storage concepts. These innovations may provide broad public access to collections expanding the scope of access further than it has ever gone.
II. A brief look back at the paradigm shift to education
Thomas Kuhn, in seeking to understand the history of science, observed that change did not happen progressively over time, but instead quick (relative to the timeline) dramatic shifts occurred. This is a concept similar to the idea of punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of species. Kuhn described this period of dramatic like seen in the shift from Toloman to Copernican astronomy as a paradigm shift[1]. We, in the museum community today, are going through a paradigm shift which is expanding the scope of participation for groups inside the museum. Daniel Spock in his April 2006 article The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice said:
The [museum] field witnessed the expansion of the curatorial role: now it would include not only selecting objects and writing didactic scripts, but also a sense of how to better orchestrate the process to make exhibitions that enhance museum-based learning. Museum educators for their part, began to be included in exhibit development as never before-if they weren’t simply subsumed into the new exhibit developer role altogether. The Old regime- in which museum educators were consigned to bringing up the rear-devising tours and lesson plans after all the important exhibit decisions had already been made has given way in many leading institutions to a mere inclusive model of exhibit program development with a concern for education at its core[2]. Pg 168
Spock is echoing a point which is seen and heard clearly throughout the museum field: one that says the paradigm shift we are experiencing is undoubtedly one which provides a broader focus for curation and places larger importance on the work of museum educators. This is an important innovation within the museum that can be seen by growing budgets for museum education departments. At the Saint Louis Science Center, the community programs department has become the best funded department in the museum[3]. We can also point to the emergence of the Museum Education Roundtable in 1969 and their publication The Journal of Museum Education whose voice on issues bears almost as much clout in the museum field as any other professional museum association[4]. The educator has become a pivotal part of exhibit design reshaping how museums are used and as a result what is put inside of them.
III. Science center as the embodiment of shift and costs
The educational paradigm shift, which many types of museums are experiencing, is most clearly embodied by the creation of the Science Center. One of the first science centers, the Ontario Science Center (OSC), opened in 1969 and has been described as “not collections based, but designed to actively engage the visitor through hands-on, interactive experiences”[5]. This focus on the hands-on, moving away from collections, as the museums primary focus is the heart of the changes that museums are experiencing.
Unfortunately, the focus on education and hands-on museums comes at a cost. When the growth of one area of a museum comes, it comes by weaning museums of those funds and focus from other parts of the museum. Most of the resources have been taken away from collections. The Saint Louis Science Center, while an outstanding institution, clearly is an example of this process. Most of its collections, which came from its former existence as a natural history museum, are stored a street away from the museum and closed to the public. This type of situation was the concern of Michael Mares when he said:
Today that irreplaceable storehouse, which has been protected and cared for at such great cost and sacrifice for centuries, is being threatened by people who do not understand it, cannot appreciate it, and are unable to shoulder the enormous responsibility of caring for it. pg 85
Mares attributed this decline in collections funding and focus to “bean counters with advanced degrees” who are trying to run museums for profit[6]. Museums with hands-on components may be more profitable as the Commission of Museums for a New Century hints at when they stated in their 1984 publication that “in competition with more visible public programs and popular special exhibitions, which offer immediate, tangible rewards to museums and for which funding is often available, behind the scenes activities can often be pushed to the side.” In fact, a museum survey reported in Museums USA showed that of the museums surveyed, directors estimated an increase of 58% in spending was needed for collections in their institutions in order to adequately care for maintenance and revitalization of museum collections[7].
Collections are fundamentally important not only for museums, but for humans. If it were not for the collections of core samples collected over decades we would not have been able to detect a layer of iridium which aided the theory of the dinosaur’s destruction by a giant asteroid[8]. This is not to say that we can’t over-collect or collect erroneously. Stephen Weil’s case study of the National Toothpick museum (NTM) is testament to the fact that collecting can go too far[9], but it remains fundamentally important. Therefore, a balance must be derived within the museum community to ensure its proper support.
IV. Technology as part of the answer
Part of the answer in creating this balance in museums may come from technology. Innovators in the museum community have been perfecting tools and ideas which offer some hope that they will provide museum collections that have been closed to the public the ability to increase access and care for their collections. The innovations are many and the possibilities unlimited as technology constantly expands. Several of these innovations deserve notice for the breadth of possibilities they represent.
A. Open Exhibits (online exhibitions)
Open exhibits is an open source project being developed by a partnership of Ideum, an organization which creates online exhibitions, social networking sites, and various other web applications for nonprofit organizations [10]and the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), the premiere professional organization for Science centers. In their own words Open exhibits:
“Will develop a library of extensible software modules for all major platforms that exhibit developers can configure in almost unlimited ways. Built using the popular Adobe Flash and Flex authoring tools, museum professionals will be able to creative innovative floor and Web-based exhibits more easily and inexpensively.”[11]
The overall goal of Open exhibits is more than simply creating software for online exhibitions; the Open exhibits team wants to create a “community of practice” so that the ideas and innovations of all users can be democratized throughout the museum field. They plan to do this through forums, wiki’s, and research findings all surrounding the base software[12]. This concept of software sharing has been dubbed open source. Open source has come to define software which is made to be openly and freely used by all. The Linux operating system, one of the early examples of open source, had the effect of popularizing and expanding the idea as did the hacker culture. Open source has been described as “a bazaar” as opposed to a “cathedral” which describes the traditional software model[13]. The benefit of open source according to the Open Source Initiative who Open exhibits cites is “is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in”[14].
Because of the structure, and unique mission of the Open Exhibits project, it provides museum collections with possibilities which can be of help in dealing with the limitations they are faced with due to the educational paradigm shift. First, because of the Open source concept that this project employs, it allows for museum collections departments who are dealing with limited monetary resources to maximize the funds they do have by using free and open software. The financial savings are quite relevant as high quality software can cost in the thousands. What is more, due to the creation along with the software of a “community of practice” and free templates, museums can avoid the costly employment or contracting of web design experts.
Secondly, it can help by opening up collections objects to the public who we hold them in trust for. Traditionally, only ten percent of collections are displayed for the public, and those that are displayed are only visible to those within a reasonable geographic proximity. Open exhibits and online exhibitions in general allow for those collections to be visible globally. What is even more incredible is it allows for innumerable objects to be observed regardless of the limits of the museum building. The limits of museums ability to make collections available to the public disappears under this scenario. Now, critics may argue that viewing objects online is not equivalent to experiencing the object in person. We have all seen pictures of the Mona Lisa, but people still travel from all over the world to view it on display at the Louvre. This is a fair point, but if we take Open exhibits as only part of a more comprehensive solution we can all appreciate its value.
B. Open Storage
Where open exhibits and online exhibitions generally falls short, the Open storage concept can compensate.
[15]
Look at the picture above this may appear to be just another museum gallery, a cluttered antique shop or some cross between the two, but this is actually what you would see if you visited the Brooklyn Museums Visible Storage and Study Center. The idea is simple; most museums rarely display more than ten percent of the collections[16] they have as mentioned before, and with the pendulum swinging toward an increased focus on education it is unlikely that this will change in the traditional museum setting. The option employed by the Brooklyn Museum was to take 5000 square feet of storage space and essentially enclose it in glass, and display it to the public. If we in the museum field are holding these objects in the public trust why shouldn’t they be able to see them? The Brooklyn museum says they can! In the Brooklyn museum itself only about 350 objects can be displayed at anytime, but the open storage concept allows them to display an additional 2000 of those objects[17]. That is a net increase of more than 400% in public access.
What does this do in allowing museums to maximize resources in regard to collections? It first allows museums an added source of revenue potential. As mentioned in the discussion of the apparent paradigm shift happening in museums generally and science centers specifically, part of the advantage garnered by educational hands-on programs as opposed to collection-rich ones is the presence of direct monetary rewards and superior funding. The ability for collections to have independent capital being garnered through open storage will increase collections departments’ abilities to handle decreases in funding from the museum in general.
The open storage concept has the secondary benefit of widening public access to collection items expanding the resource of space which along with funds, has diminished due to the educational paradigm shift. It has this positive effect in common with online exhibition ventures like open exhibits, but while the online exhibition can be viewed by anyone regardless of geographic location, open storage allows the visitor to see the real thing, which the above example about the Mona Lisa demonstrates, there is no substitute for.
C. Digital Databases
The open storage concept is a theoretically profitable way for museums to expand the dimensions of interaction that visitors have with museum objects. However, unlike a traditional exhibition, collections must be organized according to specific guidelines, not just according to visitor desires. Technology may provide resource saving methods of accomplishing this task. The innovation that technology provides is the digitalization of collections. Like open storage and open exhibits, the resource of access can be increased by using digital databases as they can easily be transferred online. The way that digital databases would be used differs significantly from how an online exhibition like open exhibits would be used. An online museum catalog or database would allow researchers and experts mainly, as well as some entrepreneurial educators, to access information and in some cases pictures of objects. In fact, software like QuickTime VR allows 3d digital recreations to be made for users to browse through.
A digital database can also increase monetary resources by taking advantage of open source software from the same ideological camp as open exhibits. Collective Access is one such option which allows reduced cost by using free and open software. Collective Access created by Whirl-i-gig is a real and fully-functional alternative to expensive proprietary software. In many ways, it is superior as it provides a free support forum and wiki as well as provides you the ability to modify the software as individual museums please to meet the unique needs of different institutions[18].
The final benefit that digital databases provide is time. If museum collections departments are going to capitalize on the possibilities of open storage and online exhibitions they will need man hours to put toward those pursuits. A functional and simple digital database may provide that time.
V. Conclusions
It is paramount for society to view the preservation of collections as important and make all due effort to support that pursuit. The paradigm shift toward a more hands-on museum has drawn the pendulum away from collections. It is fundamentally important that we find ways to balance the need for hands-on learning with the preservation of the “real thing”. Technology can help us in this pursuit by maximizing the use of scarce resources like access, money, and time for collection managers. Online exhibitions can expand access beyond geographic restrictions and save money through the use of open source software. Similarly, digital databases can take advantage of open source alternatives and maximize the time of collections employees by making collection management simpler. Finally, open storage provides the possibilities for independent revenue and public access to objects in person.
In this pursuit museums are only beginning. As of 2006 only 63% of museums had technology funding. In addition, some 60% of museums found the technology funding insufficient. Even if museums have technology, 76% don’t have the required skilled staff to employ that technology. Digitalization efforts are equally early in development. Of all museums only 40% receive funding for this purpose. Of those that do only 55% make any available to the public via the internet or on-site[19]. The early state of museum adoption of technology should not be looked at as a weakness, but an opportunity for growth, and an increasing ability to deal with the changing paradigm in the museum world.
VI. Works Cited
Commission on Museums for a New Century. "Stewards of a Common Wealth." Museums for a New Century. American Association of Museums, 1984. 35-51.
"Exhibitions: Visible Storage. Study Center." Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn Museum. 2 Dec. 2008
Lewis, Lesley, and Jennifer L. Martin. "Science Centers: Creatig a Platform for Twenty-first Century Innovation." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 107-16.
Mares, Michael A. "Moral Obligations Incumbent upon institutions, Administrations, and Directiors in Maintaining and Caring for Museum Collections." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 79-98.
"Open Exhibits." Open Source Software for Museums. 2008. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008
OSI Board. "Home." Weblog post. Open Source Initiative. 13 Mar. 2007. 2 Dec. 2008
Raymond, Eric S., and Bob Young. The Cathedral and the Bazaar : Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Danbury: O'Reilly Media, Incorporated, 2001.
Robinson, Cynthia. "Museum Education Association." The Museum Education Roundtable. 10 Apr. 2007. Museum Education Roundtable. 2 Dec. 2008.
Rounds, Jay. "Foundations of Museology 1." Lecture 11/17/08. University of Missouri St. Louis, Saint Louis. 17 Nov. 2008.
Spadaccini, Jim. "About Us." Ideum. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008.
Spock, Daniel. “The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice: A comment on Rounds and Falk” Curator April 2006. 167-180
Status of Technology and Digitization. Rep.No. Institute of Museum and Library Servicies. 2006.
Weil, Stephen E. "The Proper Business of the Museum: Ideas or Things?" Rethinking the Museum. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution P, 1990. 43-56.
Whirl-i-gig. "Overview." CollectiveAccess- The Open Source Collections Mangment System for Museums and Archives. 2008. Whirl-i-gig. 2 Dec. 2008
[1] Rounds
[2] Spock
[4] Robinson
[5] Lewis
[6] Mares
[7] Commission on Museums for a New Century
[8] Mares
[9] Weil
[10] Spadaccini
[11] Open exhibits
[12] ibit
[13] Raymond
[14] OSI Board
[15] Brooklyn Museum
[16] The Commission on Museums for a New Century
[17] Brooklyn museum
[18]Whirl-i-gig
[19] Status of Technology and Digitalization
Over the last forty years museums have been experiencing a paradigm shift and giving creative authority to more departments within the museum beyond just the curator. Through very deliberate efforts by museum educators and exhibit designers, significant change has evolved in the goals of the museum. Nowhere is this more apparent than in science centers like the Saint Louis Science Center was transformed from a natural history museum to a more hands-on, education led museum. Increased authority of museum educators has not come without tradeoffs. Currently, the thousands of collection items which once adorned the walls of the museum now sit in the back rooms of the Taylor Science Community Center; a smaller building located a street away from the main museum building. These collections are priceless items which include giant crystals worth tens of thousands of dollars and innumerable animal remains which are unlike any others in existence. Unfortunately, these collections remain closed to the public and in some cases entirely uncataloged. The Saint Louis Science Center is not alone in this phenomenon. Science centers have caught on across the nation, in many cases, at the expense of the traditional object based natural history museum and their collections. This in some cases has led to decreased care for collections, and certainly a closing off of collections from public view.
Part of the solution to this dilemma may come through technology. In recent years the field of collections management has seen several new innovations in technology from web based cataloging to open storage concepts. These innovations may provide broad public access to collections expanding the scope of access further than it has ever gone.
II. A brief look back at the paradigm shift to education
Thomas Kuhn, in seeking to understand the history of science, observed that change did not happen progressively over time, but instead quick (relative to the timeline) dramatic shifts occurred. This is a concept similar to the idea of punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of species. Kuhn described this period of dramatic like seen in the shift from Toloman to Copernican astronomy as a paradigm shift[1]. We, in the museum community today, are going through a paradigm shift which is expanding the scope of participation for groups inside the museum. Daniel Spock in his April 2006 article The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice said:
The [museum] field witnessed the expansion of the curatorial role: now it would include not only selecting objects and writing didactic scripts, but also a sense of how to better orchestrate the process to make exhibitions that enhance museum-based learning. Museum educators for their part, began to be included in exhibit development as never before-if they weren’t simply subsumed into the new exhibit developer role altogether. The Old regime- in which museum educators were consigned to bringing up the rear-devising tours and lesson plans after all the important exhibit decisions had already been made has given way in many leading institutions to a mere inclusive model of exhibit program development with a concern for education at its core[2]. Pg 168
Spock is echoing a point which is seen and heard clearly throughout the museum field: one that says the paradigm shift we are experiencing is undoubtedly one which provides a broader focus for curation and places larger importance on the work of museum educators. This is an important innovation within the museum that can be seen by growing budgets for museum education departments. At the Saint Louis Science Center, the community programs department has become the best funded department in the museum[3]. We can also point to the emergence of the Museum Education Roundtable in 1969 and their publication The Journal of Museum Education whose voice on issues bears almost as much clout in the museum field as any other professional museum association[4]. The educator has become a pivotal part of exhibit design reshaping how museums are used and as a result what is put inside of them.
III. Science center as the embodiment of shift and costs
The educational paradigm shift, which many types of museums are experiencing, is most clearly embodied by the creation of the Science Center. One of the first science centers, the Ontario Science Center (OSC), opened in 1969 and has been described as “not collections based, but designed to actively engage the visitor through hands-on, interactive experiences”[5]. This focus on the hands-on, moving away from collections, as the museums primary focus is the heart of the changes that museums are experiencing.
Unfortunately, the focus on education and hands-on museums comes at a cost. When the growth of one area of a museum comes, it comes by weaning museums of those funds and focus from other parts of the museum. Most of the resources have been taken away from collections. The Saint Louis Science Center, while an outstanding institution, clearly is an example of this process. Most of its collections, which came from its former existence as a natural history museum, are stored a street away from the museum and closed to the public. This type of situation was the concern of Michael Mares when he said:
Today that irreplaceable storehouse, which has been protected and cared for at such great cost and sacrifice for centuries, is being threatened by people who do not understand it, cannot appreciate it, and are unable to shoulder the enormous responsibility of caring for it. pg 85
Mares attributed this decline in collections funding and focus to “bean counters with advanced degrees” who are trying to run museums for profit[6]. Museums with hands-on components may be more profitable as the Commission of Museums for a New Century hints at when they stated in their 1984 publication that “in competition with more visible public programs and popular special exhibitions, which offer immediate, tangible rewards to museums and for which funding is often available, behind the scenes activities can often be pushed to the side.” In fact, a museum survey reported in Museums USA showed that of the museums surveyed, directors estimated an increase of 58% in spending was needed for collections in their institutions in order to adequately care for maintenance and revitalization of museum collections[7].
Collections are fundamentally important not only for museums, but for humans. If it were not for the collections of core samples collected over decades we would not have been able to detect a layer of iridium which aided the theory of the dinosaur’s destruction by a giant asteroid[8]. This is not to say that we can’t over-collect or collect erroneously. Stephen Weil’s case study of the National Toothpick museum (NTM) is testament to the fact that collecting can go too far[9], but it remains fundamentally important. Therefore, a balance must be derived within the museum community to ensure its proper support.
IV. Technology as part of the answer
Part of the answer in creating this balance in museums may come from technology. Innovators in the museum community have been perfecting tools and ideas which offer some hope that they will provide museum collections that have been closed to the public the ability to increase access and care for their collections. The innovations are many and the possibilities unlimited as technology constantly expands. Several of these innovations deserve notice for the breadth of possibilities they represent.
A. Open Exhibits (online exhibitions)
Open exhibits is an open source project being developed by a partnership of Ideum, an organization which creates online exhibitions, social networking sites, and various other web applications for nonprofit organizations [10]and the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), the premiere professional organization for Science centers. In their own words Open exhibits:
“Will develop a library of extensible software modules for all major platforms that exhibit developers can configure in almost unlimited ways. Built using the popular Adobe Flash and Flex authoring tools, museum professionals will be able to creative innovative floor and Web-based exhibits more easily and inexpensively.”[11]
The overall goal of Open exhibits is more than simply creating software for online exhibitions; the Open exhibits team wants to create a “community of practice” so that the ideas and innovations of all users can be democratized throughout the museum field. They plan to do this through forums, wiki’s, and research findings all surrounding the base software[12]. This concept of software sharing has been dubbed open source. Open source has come to define software which is made to be openly and freely used by all. The Linux operating system, one of the early examples of open source, had the effect of popularizing and expanding the idea as did the hacker culture. Open source has been described as “a bazaar” as opposed to a “cathedral” which describes the traditional software model[13]. The benefit of open source according to the Open Source Initiative who Open exhibits cites is “is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in”[14].
Because of the structure, and unique mission of the Open Exhibits project, it provides museum collections with possibilities which can be of help in dealing with the limitations they are faced with due to the educational paradigm shift. First, because of the Open source concept that this project employs, it allows for museum collections departments who are dealing with limited monetary resources to maximize the funds they do have by using free and open software. The financial savings are quite relevant as high quality software can cost in the thousands. What is more, due to the creation along with the software of a “community of practice” and free templates, museums can avoid the costly employment or contracting of web design experts.
Secondly, it can help by opening up collections objects to the public who we hold them in trust for. Traditionally, only ten percent of collections are displayed for the public, and those that are displayed are only visible to those within a reasonable geographic proximity. Open exhibits and online exhibitions in general allow for those collections to be visible globally. What is even more incredible is it allows for innumerable objects to be observed regardless of the limits of the museum building. The limits of museums ability to make collections available to the public disappears under this scenario. Now, critics may argue that viewing objects online is not equivalent to experiencing the object in person. We have all seen pictures of the Mona Lisa, but people still travel from all over the world to view it on display at the Louvre. This is a fair point, but if we take Open exhibits as only part of a more comprehensive solution we can all appreciate its value.
B. Open Storage
Where open exhibits and online exhibitions generally falls short, the Open storage concept can compensate.
[15]
Look at the picture above this may appear to be just another museum gallery, a cluttered antique shop or some cross between the two, but this is actually what you would see if you visited the Brooklyn Museums Visible Storage and Study Center. The idea is simple; most museums rarely display more than ten percent of the collections[16] they have as mentioned before, and with the pendulum swinging toward an increased focus on education it is unlikely that this will change in the traditional museum setting. The option employed by the Brooklyn Museum was to take 5000 square feet of storage space and essentially enclose it in glass, and display it to the public. If we in the museum field are holding these objects in the public trust why shouldn’t they be able to see them? The Brooklyn museum says they can! In the Brooklyn museum itself only about 350 objects can be displayed at anytime, but the open storage concept allows them to display an additional 2000 of those objects[17]. That is a net increase of more than 400% in public access.
What does this do in allowing museums to maximize resources in regard to collections? It first allows museums an added source of revenue potential. As mentioned in the discussion of the apparent paradigm shift happening in museums generally and science centers specifically, part of the advantage garnered by educational hands-on programs as opposed to collection-rich ones is the presence of direct monetary rewards and superior funding. The ability for collections to have independent capital being garnered through open storage will increase collections departments’ abilities to handle decreases in funding from the museum in general.
The open storage concept has the secondary benefit of widening public access to collection items expanding the resource of space which along with funds, has diminished due to the educational paradigm shift. It has this positive effect in common with online exhibition ventures like open exhibits, but while the online exhibition can be viewed by anyone regardless of geographic location, open storage allows the visitor to see the real thing, which the above example about the Mona Lisa demonstrates, there is no substitute for.
C. Digital Databases
The open storage concept is a theoretically profitable way for museums to expand the dimensions of interaction that visitors have with museum objects. However, unlike a traditional exhibition, collections must be organized according to specific guidelines, not just according to visitor desires. Technology may provide resource saving methods of accomplishing this task. The innovation that technology provides is the digitalization of collections. Like open storage and open exhibits, the resource of access can be increased by using digital databases as they can easily be transferred online. The way that digital databases would be used differs significantly from how an online exhibition like open exhibits would be used. An online museum catalog or database would allow researchers and experts mainly, as well as some entrepreneurial educators, to access information and in some cases pictures of objects. In fact, software like QuickTime VR allows 3d digital recreations to be made for users to browse through.
A digital database can also increase monetary resources by taking advantage of open source software from the same ideological camp as open exhibits. Collective Access is one such option which allows reduced cost by using free and open software. Collective Access created by Whirl-i-gig is a real and fully-functional alternative to expensive proprietary software. In many ways, it is superior as it provides a free support forum and wiki as well as provides you the ability to modify the software as individual museums please to meet the unique needs of different institutions[18].
The final benefit that digital databases provide is time. If museum collections departments are going to capitalize on the possibilities of open storage and online exhibitions they will need man hours to put toward those pursuits. A functional and simple digital database may provide that time.
V. Conclusions
It is paramount for society to view the preservation of collections as important and make all due effort to support that pursuit. The paradigm shift toward a more hands-on museum has drawn the pendulum away from collections. It is fundamentally important that we find ways to balance the need for hands-on learning with the preservation of the “real thing”. Technology can help us in this pursuit by maximizing the use of scarce resources like access, money, and time for collection managers. Online exhibitions can expand access beyond geographic restrictions and save money through the use of open source software. Similarly, digital databases can take advantage of open source alternatives and maximize the time of collections employees by making collection management simpler. Finally, open storage provides the possibilities for independent revenue and public access to objects in person.
In this pursuit museums are only beginning. As of 2006 only 63% of museums had technology funding. In addition, some 60% of museums found the technology funding insufficient. Even if museums have technology, 76% don’t have the required skilled staff to employ that technology. Digitalization efforts are equally early in development. Of all museums only 40% receive funding for this purpose. Of those that do only 55% make any available to the public via the internet or on-site[19]. The early state of museum adoption of technology should not be looked at as a weakness, but an opportunity for growth, and an increasing ability to deal with the changing paradigm in the museum world.
VI. Works Cited
Commission on Museums for a New Century. "Stewards of a Common Wealth." Museums for a New Century. American Association of Museums, 1984. 35-51.
"Exhibitions: Visible Storage. Study Center." Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn Museum. 2 Dec. 2008
Lewis, Lesley, and Jennifer L. Martin. "Science Centers: Creatig a Platform for Twenty-first Century Innovation." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 107-16.
Mares, Michael A. "Moral Obligations Incumbent upon institutions, Administrations, and Directiors in Maintaining and Caring for Museum Collections." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 79-98.
"Open Exhibits." Open Source Software for Museums. 2008. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008
OSI Board. "Home." Weblog post. Open Source Initiative. 13 Mar. 2007. 2 Dec. 2008
Raymond, Eric S., and Bob Young. The Cathedral and the Bazaar : Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Danbury: O'Reilly Media, Incorporated, 2001.
Robinson, Cynthia. "Museum Education Association." The Museum Education Roundtable. 10 Apr. 2007. Museum Education Roundtable. 2 Dec. 2008
Rounds, Jay. "Foundations of Museology 1." Lecture 11/17/08. University of Missouri St. Louis, Saint Louis. 17 Nov. 2008.
Spadaccini, Jim. "About Us." Ideum. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008
Spock, Daniel. “The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice: A comment on Rounds and Falk” Curator April 2006. 167-180
Status of Technology and Digitization. Rep.No. Institute of Museum and Library Servicies. 2006.
Weil, Stephen E. "The Proper Business of the Museum: Ideas or Things?" Rethinking the Museum. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution P, 1990. 43-56.
Whirl-i-gig. "Overview." CollectiveAccess- The Open Source Collections Mangment System for Museums and Archives. 2008. Whirl-i-gig. 2 Dec. 2008
[1] Rounds
[2] Spock
[4] Robinson
[5] Lewis
[6] Mares
[7] Commission on Museums for a New Century
[8] Mares
[9] Weil
[10] Spadaccini
[11] Open exhibits
[12] ibit
[13] Raymond
[14] OSI Board
[15] Brooklyn Museum
[16] The Commission on Museums for a New Century
[17] Brooklyn museum
[18]Whirl-i-gig
[19] Status of Technology and Digitalization
Obama v.s. McCain on global warming cred..does it really matter who is more green
We are in a highly political year with St. Louis election officials preparing for the largest voter turnout in recent memory. Some such as Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan are estimating that we will see an 80% turn out (Clevenger pg 2). What does this mean for the issue of climate change? While it doesn't rate as a top issue on the minds of voters the candidates seem to believe global climate change and energy policy is a key topic in getting those increasing number of voters to turn out for them. In fact both candidates have endorsed greenhouse emission cutbacks both here in the United States and abroad, issues that the Bush administration has largely ignored over its eight years in office (Blackstone pg 1). This change in attitude of our leading politicians points to an increased sense of urgency among an increasingly vocal segment of the population. Much of which may be caused by the success of Al Gore's campaign on the issue, as well as that of leading figures in entertainment, and the world community such as Kofi Annan, and Nelson Mandela (Reuters 2007) Regardless of the cause of this spike in interest, the question of who is best to lead the United States in reform around this issue bears pertinence and requires further analysis. So who will history show to be the better candidate to enact sweeping policy change on the issue of Global warming? The answer depends on a variety of factors from having the adequate political capital to a president’s relationship with congress, but the one which is most relevant to an election season may be that of political will. In other words who has the record to match the tough talk on the campaign trail? By looking at our candidates records we will achieve clarity into what should be the true focus of voters, and that is not who wants to change the environment, but who can and how.
John McCain claims to be a maverick of the Republican Party, but as his critics are always quick to point out more times than not he doesn’t rock the boat. This does not seem to be the case on the issue of global warming, as in 2000 following a tough defeat to George W. Bush in the Republican primary John McCain went back to the Senate and held hearings in the commerce committee on the issue of global warming, after which he drafted a bill with then Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman which was the first vote in the Senate on the issue of Global Warming. The bill failed to pass due to the perceived weakness of some of its proposals (McKibbin, 2004). This is where some in the environmental community criticize McCain saying "While McCain may understand the scale of the climate problem, he does not appear to understand the scale of the solution" (Romm 2008). To further this argument McCain voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2006 saying "the American public is going to be saddled entirely with the expense of this bill, which is running on empty--empty of new ideas--and further running up our deficit"(McCain 2005). While McCain does seem unwilling at times to expend significant federal dollars he has continued his fight to make global warming a priority, one of the only Republicans to do so.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama is from a party, who is seen as friendly to environmentalists, and he has been a vocal supporter of action on global warming from the campaign trail, but what does his record reveal? One of his first votes in the Senate in 2005 was actually a Yes vote on the Lieberman/McCain Energy Bill beginning his tenure as a pro-environment senator. From that point on according to the Matter Network Obama went on to vote in favor of clean energy 23 out of 24 times. However, by 2005 Global Warming was a large Democratic issue prior to this in his service as a Illinois State Senator his record was not as clear voting along with many against the Kyoto protocol claiming it “did not have "meaningful and achievable emissions targets," and that Obama "did not believe that state agencies in Illinois should unilaterally take steps to implement a global policy on their own …". In addition, he voted several times to use public funds to aid the coal industry which is so vital to the economy of southern Illinois (Dilanian, 2008).
So what can we conclude from our political candidates and their records. It would seem the historic split between Republican and Democrat and between Business and Environmentalist on this issue has softened as both of our presidential candidates stand right in line with each other despite the claims of constant TV ads. Even the Bush administration and corporate leaders that once decried global warming as a nonissue are taking heed (Brown 2007). More than this however perhaps what voters should be considering in this election season should not be on who does and who does not want to defend the environment as political attack ads seem to focus, but rather who can, and how.
Works Cited
Blackstone, John. "Obama and McCain on Climate Change." CBS News 23 Sep 2008 1-4. 25
Sep 2008.
Clevenger, Donna. "Voter Turnout Expected to Spike." Branson Daily News 25 Sep 2008 1-2.
25 Sep 2008.
Dilanian, Ken. "Obama shifts stance on enviromental issues." USA Today 18 Jul 2008 1-3. 25
Sep 2008.
Doyle, Alister. "Gore, Winfrey, Annan seen as climate leaders-poll." Reuters 02 Jul 2007 1-2. 25
Sep 2008.
McCain, John. "Energy Policy Act of 2005 Speech." United States Senate, Washington D.C. .
06/28.2005.
McKibben, Bill. "McCains Lonely War on Global Warming." Alternet 01 Apr 2004 1-5. 25 Sep
2008
"Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record." Matter Network 18 Sep 2008 1-4. 25 Sep 2008
John McCain claims to be a maverick of the Republican Party, but as his critics are always quick to point out more times than not he doesn’t rock the boat. This does not seem to be the case on the issue of global warming, as in 2000 following a tough defeat to George W. Bush in the Republican primary John McCain went back to the Senate and held hearings in the commerce committee on the issue of global warming, after which he drafted a bill with then Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman which was the first vote in the Senate on the issue of Global Warming. The bill failed to pass due to the perceived weakness of some of its proposals (McKibbin, 2004). This is where some in the environmental community criticize McCain saying "While McCain may understand the scale of the climate problem, he does not appear to understand the scale of the solution" (Romm 2008). To further this argument McCain voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2006 saying "the American public is going to be saddled entirely with the expense of this bill, which is running on empty--empty of new ideas--and further running up our deficit"(McCain 2005). While McCain does seem unwilling at times to expend significant federal dollars he has continued his fight to make global warming a priority, one of the only Republicans to do so.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama is from a party, who is seen as friendly to environmentalists, and he has been a vocal supporter of action on global warming from the campaign trail, but what does his record reveal? One of his first votes in the Senate in 2005 was actually a Yes vote on the Lieberman/McCain Energy Bill beginning his tenure as a pro-environment senator. From that point on according to the Matter Network Obama went on to vote in favor of clean energy 23 out of 24 times. However, by 2005 Global Warming was a large Democratic issue prior to this in his service as a Illinois State Senator his record was not as clear voting along with many against the Kyoto protocol claiming it “did not have "meaningful and achievable emissions targets," and that Obama "did not believe that state agencies in Illinois should unilaterally take steps to implement a global policy on their own …". In addition, he voted several times to use public funds to aid the coal industry which is so vital to the economy of southern Illinois (Dilanian, 2008).
So what can we conclude from our political candidates and their records. It would seem the historic split between Republican and Democrat and between Business and Environmentalist on this issue has softened as both of our presidential candidates stand right in line with each other despite the claims of constant TV ads. Even the Bush administration and corporate leaders that once decried global warming as a nonissue are taking heed (Brown 2007). More than this however perhaps what voters should be considering in this election season should not be on who does and who does not want to defend the environment as political attack ads seem to focus, but rather who can, and how.
Works Cited
Blackstone, John. "Obama and McCain on Climate Change." CBS News 23 Sep 2008 1-4. 25
Sep 2008
Clevenger, Donna. "Voter Turnout Expected to Spike." Branson Daily News 25 Sep 2008 1-2.
25 Sep 2008
Dilanian, Ken. "Obama shifts stance on enviromental issues." USA Today 18 Jul 2008 1-3. 25
Sep 2008
Doyle, Alister. "Gore, Winfrey, Annan seen as climate leaders-poll." Reuters 02 Jul 2007 1-2. 25
Sep 2008
McCain, John. "Energy Policy Act of 2005 Speech." United States Senate, Washington D.C. .
06/28.2005.
McKibben, Bill. "McCains Lonely War on Global Warming." Alternet 01 Apr 2004 1-5. 25 Sep
2008
"Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record." Matter Network 18 Sep 2008 1-4. 25 Sep 2008
Review of The Prize by Daniel Yergan
“The Prize is mastery,” according to Winston Churchill as he made the far - sighted decision to switch the British navy from locally produced coal to imported oil. This assessment of oil and its role appears to be much further reaching than Churchill could ever have imagined from the personal to the political to the economic. Oil in the 20th century is your ticket to mastery or destruction depending on your relationship to it.
The author, Daniel Yergan, describes three major themes in the history of oil since its rise as a global commodity. The first is economic; the rise of oil as the worlds largest business. According to Yergan, “of the top twenty companies in the fortune 500 seven are oil companies.” He makes clear that, in the 20th century, the rise and fall of the price of oil spells the difference between economic prosperity and inflation induced recession. In other words, as the 1970s oil shocks and the present spike in energy costs shows the prize of oil equals mastery of global markets.
The second theme of petroleum history is the political. So much of our geopolitics could be better understood as a global struggle for access to oil. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was to protect their access to petroleum reserves in the East Indies as Japan had to more than 95% of energy resources, and they were in great need of oil to continue the war effort. Similarly, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in WWII may have been successful had he not had to divert so many resources toward securing oil fields in the Caucasus. The list goes on to include the Suez canal crisis of 1956, Saddams invasion of Kuwait, and the overthrow of the Shah in Iran which Yergan notes is proof that oil can sometimes be fools gold as it led to the Shahs downfall despite his massive supply. However, as a general rule once again, as was the case in the economic sphere, control of oil equals mastery of political realities.
The final theme of petroleum may be the most important to the everyday person, and that is the transformation of the human race in a social sense into a “hydrocarbon society” meaning that our very lifestyles hinge upon oil from the cars we drive, to the fertilizers that bring us our food, to the plastics that makeup so many of the products we depend on. The reaction to this social dependence on oil and its negative effects environmentally from global climate change, to the destruction of ozone, to smog that pollutes our cities pitted against the so called right to consume; the author notes is one of the great clashes of our time. It seems in this final theme of oil history, it is not he who controls oil who gains mastery but oil which very much wields mastery over us.
The first chapter of Yergen’s thorough description of the history of oil in the 20th century tells the story of the very deliberate efforts of men like George Bissell and Edwin Drake to make “rock oil” (as it was known to distinguish it from other types of oil like vegetable oil) an economically viable source of illumination to replace existing forms which were either to expensive like town gas or inferior like camphene, a derivative of turpentine. They faced many obstacles from local skepticism to lack of funds, but were able to transform society in several distinct ways. First, the way people illuminated their homes and work places allowing for increased production. Second, they created a massive industry which would eventually dominate all others but initially transformed the regions of western Pennsylvania where the oil was being pumped. And lastly, they would eventually have a hand in changing the way human beings traveled. While the author takes great care to show that Bissell and Drake were not the first to use petroleum as an illuminator (kerosene was being made from oil in small amounts at the time) they were the ones who created the means of drilling which made it an economically viable industry. At the end of the chapter, Yergan alludes to the chaos of the new industry. He talks about the dysfunction in getting oil from the ground to the backwards methods of getting it to refineries, and eludes to the organization that will come in the future in the form of massive monopolies like Standard Oil.
Critical analysis of Yergans contentions about the impact of global oil are difficult to make as his presumption that oil control is equivalent to mastery is supported not only by the history he has written, but all the more by current events. The current Bush administration showed just how significant oil is in geopolitics by its choice to target Iraq in the war on terror instead of our important oil ally Saudi Arabia whose citizens made up the majority of the 9/11 hijackers and who’s government actually held a telethon for the terrorist group Hamas. It is also a fair presumption to say that security of oil in Iraq was a motivator of our invasion there, as documents written in part by Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a myriad of other top Bush Administration officials in 1997 echo a desire to invade Iraq just for that purpose. Despite the current focus on oil as a chief motivator in geopolitics one could argue that Yergan overstates the case a bit. While oil is certainly a motivator, the question remains as to whether or not it is a chief motivator. While the Bush Administration may have been concerned about oil security, the majority of Americans supported the War in Iraq because of an apparent national security risk in the form of weapons of mass destruction. Equally, the two genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries in the Sudan and Rwanda were more motivated by ethnic distrust and scarce food and water then oil. Lastly, while oil has had an effect in triggering recession; it is global banking and finance companies which historically have led to the largest economic changes from the great depression to the junk bond crisis. Oil and energy, in general, are certainly shapers of our social, economic, and political realities, but security of self, food, and water, and even religion may remain the preeminent movers of global action.
Washington Policy on the Electric Car
In 1976, spurred by the recent Oil crises, Congress passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976. This act was meant to encourage the production of more competitive electric vehicles through funding of research as well as the purchase by the federal government of 7,500 electric vehicles. The act was initially vetoed by President Ford in his words because “It is simply premature and wasteful for the Federal Government to engage in a massive demonstration program--such as that intended by the bill--before the required improvements in batteries for such vehicles are developed.” Despite strong lobbying by automakers, the President’s veto was overridden by the Senate and became law. [1] While the law was successful in increasing electric vehicle (EV) technology culminating in a fleet of EV’s driving 100 miles on a single charge, overall, consumer use fell short of implementation.32 A year later the Carter Administration passed a tax rebate for electric vehicles and electric hybrids.[2] While automakers were unsuccessful in keeping these bills from being passed they succeeded in railroading the success of the EV by keeping any government mandate on the use of electric vehicles from being passed. This allowed automakers to, by and large, avoid implementation of EV technology.
As the nation entered the 1980’s, and as the price of gas dropped, interest in the electric vehicle died away and progress on the electric car remained stagnant until 1990 when state governments stepped in and took the action that Washington would not. Over the next few years from 1990 to 1994 automakers innovated and made more progress on electric vehicles than they had since the creation of the EV by Thomas Edison in the early 1900’s.[3] The process began with the passage of a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandated by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). The mandate required that 2% of car sales by major manufactures should be ZEV’s by 1998 with that number rising to 10% by 2003. By 1991, nine other states had instituted similar mandates. A year later Volvo displayed a plug in hybrid concept car and only a year after that, in 1993, Chrysler was the first to deliver an EV for use. By 1996, General Motors began to market its EV1 with all the reluctance it could muster. It hired only 13 people for the release of the vehicle, but none the less, the innovation had come and it came rapidly when it was pressed for. The car and utility companies did not just comply with the ZEV mandate. During this period the total funds automakers spent on lobbying efforts increased by over 30%. In addition, California utilities hired a PR firm to fight the mandate. Faced with this pressure, CARB backed down from the mandate and reduced the number of cars required from 60,000 to 1,800. In 2001, the Bush Administration went from just being unsupportive of electric vehicles to being overtly opposed by filing a “friend of the court brief” in support of General Motors in a suit against the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate claiming that only the federal government could regulate emissions. Finally, by 2003, the ZEV mandate was totally changed to support the creation of hydrogen fuel cells.[4] In 2008, an energy bill, in response to high gas prices, gave a $7,500 dollar tax break for purchasing electric vehicles, but with no government mandate to put them on the road, the effort like the one from the 70’s can’t seem to take flight.[5]
A. Interests
1. Grassroots movement
While many organizations have pushed for the electric car over the years, as a potential alternative to fossil fuel use in this country, it was not until after the elimination of the ZEV mandate that a real grassroots movement emerged expressly for this purpose. The emergence of this movement is understandable as the systematic destruction of EV’s following the ZEV mandates modification was quite dramatic and disturbing. During this period all leases on EV1’s (GMs electric vehicle) were not allowed to be renewed, and were shipped away and crushed. This dramatic action by car manufactures created a dramatic reaction among former owners and a coalition of environmental advocates. The documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car chronicles the grassroots actions of several members of this coalition as they held symbolic protests like a mock funeral for the lost electric vehicle, and real direct action like a 24 hour a day watch of a GM parking lot filled with EV1s to try and prevent the cars destruction. The film Who Killed the Electric Car itself has had an important and positive effect itself of coalescing support for the electric car[6]. As a result of grassroots actions like those mentioned organizations have started to develop as direct advocates for this issue most prominent is the 501 (c) 3 Plug in America. They describe themselves in this way
“ Plug in America drives change. We accelerate the shift to plug-in vehicles powered by clean, affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment.”
Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles Times says "Plug In America has been the clearest and loudest voice demanding electric vehicle technology, and the most effective grassroots advocacy organization for EVs." However, with no major legislation in favor of EV’s since the organizations inception we can’t say they have had much success[7].
2. Environmental Agencies
Environmental agencies like the sierra club strongly endorse the idea of Electric vehicles an article published by the organization displays an SUV with the letters EV emblazoned on the side and makes the bold claim that “we can do it” alongside a poster of Rosie the Riveter who has had her traditionally red bandana turned green to express her new environmental mission.[8] Despite the enthusiasm of these “green” organizations there have been times when Environmental advocates have not always stood with EV supporters like when the California Air Resource Board (CARB) adjusted there ZEV mandate to push for hydrogen many environmental agencies jumped on board abandoning the EV.[9] In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency which may be considered an environmental organization has consistently blocked attempts by states to cap CO2 emissions, an action which would encourage the production of EV’s. This blockage eventually resulted in the Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs. EPA in which several states sued EPA for its lack of enforcement of emissions limits which was required under the Clean Air Act. [10]
3. Auto makers
Since the creation of the electric car in the early 1900’s technology for electric cars has hardly changed. It is fair to assume that this is a result of automakers investment in the internal combustion engine as a more profitable option with all the maintenance and replacement parts required each of which produces revenue for car companies[11]. These automakers have historically decried the lack of battery technology for their lack of EV production, but as Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles times found a prius reformatted to be a plug in hybrid had a three times higher efficiency than the off the line version which used a traditional engine[12]. From the very beginning with the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 automakers lobbied heavily against electric vehicles. There opposition reached its zenith with the institution of the ZEV mandate. During the 1990’s when the mandate was in effect automakers increased the capital they assigned to lobbying by 12 million dollars. They couldn’t just depend on Washington however so they also sued California as mentioned above in the discussion of the electric cars legislative history. The automakers have consistently fought change throughout history from the seat belt to airbags and now with the electric car automakers in Detroit thought they had a working and profitable model, and they didn’t want to lose it.
4. Oil companies
Oil companies may have the most to lose with the electric vehicle. The life blood of the Oil industry is millions of American cars consuming gasoline day in and day out. It is no surprise then that they have stood in opposition to the electric vehicle time and time again. In 1994 the Western States Petroleum Association spent the most money of any lobby in Washington.[13] Much of this money was spent to protect the gas additive MTBE, but they also employed a great deal in the state of California masquerading as a private citizens group trying to influence the California Air Resource Board. In fact, Chevron even went so far as to purchase a high performance NiMH battery and prevent Toyota from using the technology for their NiMH EV-95 battery which has been proven to last the life of a vehicle.[14] Oil companies are a powerful Washington lobby with strong allies in the Bush Administration making it an uphill climb to combat them
5. Electric Utilities
As described in the legislative history Electric utilities have been active in fighting Electric cars. In particular they were a strong force in bringing to an end California’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate. They spent significant capital staging a PR campaign against the mandate. In the last few years with the success of the Toyota Prius Automakers have cooled in their opposition to electric vehicles however begrudgingly. Utility companies however remain insistent that “The utility sector isn't ready for every American to start pulling power off the grid to recharge their cars”[15].
B. Politicians
Just like with the discussion of ethanol our historical analysis of the Electric Vehicles legislative history and varying interests give us part of a picture, but to see the rest we must look at what factors drove politicians.
1. Votes
Votes are always a large factor in what decisions political actors make, and the case of the electric car is no different. In the history of electric cars as it has been recounted we can point to two major points of federal support the 1976 and 2008. What was unique about these two years is that both of them coincide with a period of unusually high gas prices. When gas prices reach a certain height voters become upset, and Washington starts to listen to angry voters more than those who line their pockets come election time. This is logical considering that if you don’t get any votes it doesn’t matter how much money you have. Outside of these two situations no significant motivation exists for Washington to react in favor of electric vehicles as the Interests lined up against them like the Western States Petroleum Association produce massive amounts of money in campaign contributions, and the grassroots movements for EV’s are still in their infancy. In fact Plug in America only received tax exempt status from the IRS in 2008.
2. Money
Perhaps it is redundant to restate, but the lack of large capital rich organizations pushing on behalf of electric vehicles is another factor in how politicians were driven. Imagine you are a Senator from Iowa, and you have a reelection campaign in a year. In the past you have received strong founding from the Auto Industry as well as Ethanol producers. You also have a large constituency of farmers who see an opportunity for profit with corn based ethanol. So now you have an energy bill to vote on. It is a solid assumption that you will not be strongly inclined to make any gestures toward electric vehicles when you run the risk of losing money for reelection, alienating your base, and you can foresee no real personal benefit from supporting them. Instead you can simply support corn based ethanol maintain an appearance of being “green”, and not putting yourself in any kind of political risk.
C. Electric Car Wrap-up The analysis of the electric car from its legislative history to an analysis of interested parties including politicians shows a story almost wholly opposite to that of Corn Based Ethanol. The Electric car represents a viable alternative which as a result of the dynamics of money and votes in Washington has failed to gain traction in its entire hundred year existence. The fundamental need for politicians to garner money for the next election, and the lack of broad public demand for the electric car, has doomed a potential alternative
[1] Ford
[2] Porter, pg 5
[3] Boschert
[4]ibit
[5] Cholie
[6] Who Killed the Electric Car
[7] Plug in America
[8] Running on Empty
[9] Who Killed the Electric Car
[10] Mass vs. EPA, pg 1-2
[11] Who Killed the Electric Car
[12] Neil
[13] Insurers, Utilities Top 94’ List of Lobbyist Spending
[14] Korthof
[15] Cohen
As the nation entered the 1980’s, and as the price of gas dropped, interest in the electric vehicle died away and progress on the electric car remained stagnant until 1990 when state governments stepped in and took the action that Washington would not. Over the next few years from 1990 to 1994 automakers innovated and made more progress on electric vehicles than they had since the creation of the EV by Thomas Edison in the early 1900’s.[3] The process began with the passage of a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandated by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). The mandate required that 2% of car sales by major manufactures should be ZEV’s by 1998 with that number rising to 10% by 2003. By 1991, nine other states had instituted similar mandates. A year later Volvo displayed a plug in hybrid concept car and only a year after that, in 1993, Chrysler was the first to deliver an EV for use. By 1996, General Motors began to market its EV1 with all the reluctance it could muster. It hired only 13 people for the release of the vehicle, but none the less, the innovation had come and it came rapidly when it was pressed for. The car and utility companies did not just comply with the ZEV mandate. During this period the total funds automakers spent on lobbying efforts increased by over 30%. In addition, California utilities hired a PR firm to fight the mandate. Faced with this pressure, CARB backed down from the mandate and reduced the number of cars required from 60,000 to 1,800. In 2001, the Bush Administration went from just being unsupportive of electric vehicles to being overtly opposed by filing a “friend of the court brief” in support of General Motors in a suit against the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate claiming that only the federal government could regulate emissions. Finally, by 2003, the ZEV mandate was totally changed to support the creation of hydrogen fuel cells.[4] In 2008, an energy bill, in response to high gas prices, gave a $7,500 dollar tax break for purchasing electric vehicles, but with no government mandate to put them on the road, the effort like the one from the 70’s can’t seem to take flight.[5]
A. Interests
1. Grassroots movement
While many organizations have pushed for the electric car over the years, as a potential alternative to fossil fuel use in this country, it was not until after the elimination of the ZEV mandate that a real grassroots movement emerged expressly for this purpose. The emergence of this movement is understandable as the systematic destruction of EV’s following the ZEV mandates modification was quite dramatic and disturbing. During this period all leases on EV1’s (GMs electric vehicle) were not allowed to be renewed, and were shipped away and crushed. This dramatic action by car manufactures created a dramatic reaction among former owners and a coalition of environmental advocates. The documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car chronicles the grassroots actions of several members of this coalition as they held symbolic protests like a mock funeral for the lost electric vehicle, and real direct action like a 24 hour a day watch of a GM parking lot filled with EV1s to try and prevent the cars destruction. The film Who Killed the Electric Car itself has had an important and positive effect itself of coalescing support for the electric car[6]. As a result of grassroots actions like those mentioned organizations have started to develop as direct advocates for this issue most prominent is the 501 (c) 3 Plug in America. They describe themselves in this way
“ Plug in America drives change. We accelerate the shift to plug-in vehicles powered by clean, affordable, domestic electricity to reduce our nation's dependence on petroleum and improve the global environment.”
Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles Times says "Plug In America has been the clearest and loudest voice demanding electric vehicle technology, and the most effective grassroots advocacy organization for EVs." However, with no major legislation in favor of EV’s since the organizations inception we can’t say they have had much success[7].
2. Environmental Agencies
Environmental agencies like the sierra club strongly endorse the idea of Electric vehicles an article published by the organization displays an SUV with the letters EV emblazoned on the side and makes the bold claim that “we can do it” alongside a poster of Rosie the Riveter who has had her traditionally red bandana turned green to express her new environmental mission.[8] Despite the enthusiasm of these “green” organizations there have been times when Environmental advocates have not always stood with EV supporters like when the California Air Resource Board (CARB) adjusted there ZEV mandate to push for hydrogen many environmental agencies jumped on board abandoning the EV.[9] In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency which may be considered an environmental organization has consistently blocked attempts by states to cap CO2 emissions, an action which would encourage the production of EV’s. This blockage eventually resulted in the Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs. EPA in which several states sued EPA for its lack of enforcement of emissions limits which was required under the Clean Air Act. [10]
3. Auto makers
Since the creation of the electric car in the early 1900’s technology for electric cars has hardly changed. It is fair to assume that this is a result of automakers investment in the internal combustion engine as a more profitable option with all the maintenance and replacement parts required each of which produces revenue for car companies[11]. These automakers have historically decried the lack of battery technology for their lack of EV production, but as Dan Neil columnist for the Los Angeles times found a prius reformatted to be a plug in hybrid had a three times higher efficiency than the off the line version which used a traditional engine[12]. From the very beginning with the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 automakers lobbied heavily against electric vehicles. There opposition reached its zenith with the institution of the ZEV mandate. During the 1990’s when the mandate was in effect automakers increased the capital they assigned to lobbying by 12 million dollars. They couldn’t just depend on Washington however so they also sued California as mentioned above in the discussion of the electric cars legislative history. The automakers have consistently fought change throughout history from the seat belt to airbags and now with the electric car automakers in Detroit thought they had a working and profitable model, and they didn’t want to lose it.
4. Oil companies
Oil companies may have the most to lose with the electric vehicle. The life blood of the Oil industry is millions of American cars consuming gasoline day in and day out. It is no surprise then that they have stood in opposition to the electric vehicle time and time again. In 1994 the Western States Petroleum Association spent the most money of any lobby in Washington.[13] Much of this money was spent to protect the gas additive MTBE, but they also employed a great deal in the state of California masquerading as a private citizens group trying to influence the California Air Resource Board. In fact, Chevron even went so far as to purchase a high performance NiMH battery and prevent Toyota from using the technology for their NiMH EV-95 battery which has been proven to last the life of a vehicle.[14] Oil companies are a powerful Washington lobby with strong allies in the Bush Administration making it an uphill climb to combat them
5. Electric Utilities
As described in the legislative history Electric utilities have been active in fighting Electric cars. In particular they were a strong force in bringing to an end California’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate. They spent significant capital staging a PR campaign against the mandate. In the last few years with the success of the Toyota Prius Automakers have cooled in their opposition to electric vehicles however begrudgingly. Utility companies however remain insistent that “The utility sector isn't ready for every American to start pulling power off the grid to recharge their cars”[15].
B. Politicians
Just like with the discussion of ethanol our historical analysis of the Electric Vehicles legislative history and varying interests give us part of a picture, but to see the rest we must look at what factors drove politicians.
1. Votes
Votes are always a large factor in what decisions political actors make, and the case of the electric car is no different. In the history of electric cars as it has been recounted we can point to two major points of federal support the 1976 and 2008. What was unique about these two years is that both of them coincide with a period of unusually high gas prices. When gas prices reach a certain height voters become upset, and Washington starts to listen to angry voters more than those who line their pockets come election time. This is logical considering that if you don’t get any votes it doesn’t matter how much money you have. Outside of these two situations no significant motivation exists for Washington to react in favor of electric vehicles as the Interests lined up against them like the Western States Petroleum Association produce massive amounts of money in campaign contributions, and the grassroots movements for EV’s are still in their infancy. In fact Plug in America only received tax exempt status from the IRS in 2008.
2. Money
Perhaps it is redundant to restate, but the lack of large capital rich organizations pushing on behalf of electric vehicles is another factor in how politicians were driven. Imagine you are a Senator from Iowa, and you have a reelection campaign in a year. In the past you have received strong founding from the Auto Industry as well as Ethanol producers. You also have a large constituency of farmers who see an opportunity for profit with corn based ethanol. So now you have an energy bill to vote on. It is a solid assumption that you will not be strongly inclined to make any gestures toward electric vehicles when you run the risk of losing money for reelection, alienating your base, and you can foresee no real personal benefit from supporting them. Instead you can simply support corn based ethanol maintain an appearance of being “green”, and not putting yourself in any kind of political risk.
C. Electric Car Wrap-up The analysis of the electric car from its legislative history to an analysis of interested parties including politicians shows a story almost wholly opposite to that of Corn Based Ethanol. The Electric car represents a viable alternative which as a result of the dynamics of money and votes in Washington has failed to gain traction in its entire hundred year existence. The fundamental need for politicians to garner money for the next election, and the lack of broad public demand for the electric car, has doomed a potential alternative
[1] Ford
[2] Porter, pg 5
[3] Boschert
[4]ibit
[5] Cholie
[6] Who Killed the Electric Car
[7] Plug in America
[8] Running on Empty
[9] Who Killed the Electric Car
[10] Mass vs. EPA, pg 1-2
[11] Who Killed the Electric Car
[12] Neil
[13] Insurers, Utilities Top 94’ List of Lobbyist Spending
[14] Korthof
[15] Cohen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)