A Welcome Spotlight on Women's Welfare

Caleb Hamman
chamman@butler.edu

When President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony Sunday, much of his focus was devoted to women. In the weeks before his arrival, there had been considerable upheaval at the Catholic university due to Obama’s support for abortion rights, a position opposed by the Church.

The abortion debate aside, in a time when gender inequality continues to plague the United States, it is reassuring to see attention being given to women’s issues. Currently, the United Nations ranks U.S. gender development 16th in the world—a ranking exacerbated by George W. Bush’s eight years in office. His administration’s first attacks on women began early and abroad.

Immediately after coming to Washington, the Bush administration instituted a “global gag rule” on foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid. Under threat of defunding, the order explicitly forbade clinics from providing women with abortion counseling or operations, even if they wished to use their own money for the services.

The next summer, the Bush administration halted potential U.S. ratification of the Convention of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Although 185 countries have ratified the treaty, the United States—like Iran, Sudan and Somalia—is not one of them.

Soon after, the Bush administration cut off $34 million from a U.N. fund providing women around the world with birth control, sex education and maternal health care. It also began a fierce attack against the newly formed International criminal court—an organization promising historical gains in holding war criminals accountable for sex crimes against women.

The previous eight years also saw a decline in the welfare of women within the United States. In Dec. 2008, a national crime report was released revealing that the latter years of the Bush administration oversaw a 25 percent increase in sexual violence and a 42 percent increase in domestic violence. Soon after the report’s release, the White House imposed a new rule on Health and Human services making it more difficult for women to obtain basic healthcare or birth control.

Because women in the United States are disproportionately poor, the Bush administration’s unceasing attacks on social programs and progressive taxes effectively constituted an assualt on women's economic welfare. Accompanying Bush’s policy programs were overt threats to veto any sort of equal pay for equal work legislation.

Throughout its eight years in office, the Bush administration showed clear disdain for its campaign promise that “W stands for women.” As a result, the welfare of women in the U.S. has stagnated relative to that of other advanced, industrialized societies.

The Obama administration has taken some valuable steps to put the U.S. back on track toward gender equality. In January, Obama rescinded Bush’s “global gag” policy. A few days later, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which advanced the campaign for ending gender discrimination in income.

Although efforts such as those of the Obama administration are valuable, they will need to be sustained and furthered if gender inequality is to be removed from the vortex of U.S. decline.

Immobility Furthering Decline

Caleb Hamman

chamman@butler.edu

In a time of financial turmoil and drastic inequality, one would hope the American Dream to be functioning well. This notion, that hard work will bring success to anyone in the United States, has always been central to America’s ideological fabric. Despite such tradition, recent research suggests a need to reevaluate the accuracy of the American Dream.

space

Ongoing work at the Economic Mobility Project (EMP) has been attempting to do just that. A nonpartisan effort funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, EMP has been conducting the most detailed research of U.S. economic mobility to date. Its findings, thoroughly concerning, strongly reinforce the arguments of The End of the American Century.

space

Using longitudinal income data, EMP researchers find the United States to be a more class stratified society than commonly believed. Despite the popularity of “rags to riches” notions, the EMP finds that, on average, children born into the poorest fifth of households have only a 6 percent chance of making it to the top income quintile. Conversely, 42 percent will remain in the poorest group. More than six in ten of these impoverished children never become even middleclass.

space

Similar mobility barriers exist at the top. While 39 percent of children born into the richest income quintile will remain there, only 9 percent will fall to the bottom. EMP finds remnants of mobility remains in the middleclass, although even these children are more likely to fall into poverty than they are to rise to wealth.

space

The project’s findings are particularly disturbing in the areas of gender and race. Women, already suffering multifaceted disparity with men, are also less mobile than their male counterparts. Compared to these, it is considerably harder for women born into poor families to become wealthy. Similarly, it is also easier for wealthy women to become poor.

space

The racial contrast is even starker. Black children are half as likely as their white counterparts to move from extreme poverty to extreme wealth. Simultaneously, black children born into the bottom income bracket are almost twice as likely as white children to remain there. Incredibly, EMP finds that nearly three in four middleclass black children will fall into poverty—a condition tremendously difficult for them to escape.

space

As such findings suggest, the American Dream is not as dynamic as many believe it to be. In fact, U.S. mobility levels are actually lower than those of many developed countries. As the EMP reports, the two major international comparisons to date have placed U.S. mobility levels either last or second-to-last among nations analyzed (which have included mostly Western Europe and Scandinavia). As EMP’s authors put, “the view that America is ‘the land of opportunity’ doesn’t entirely square with the facts.”

space

In light of the numerous economic, political, and social issues contributing to U.S. decline, the discovery of immobility is particularly troubling. As Americans become more economically and politically unequal, the stakes of socioeconomic outcomes continue to rise. That these outcomes are out of the hands of many is more than a contributor to The End of the American Century—it is an issue of fundamental fairness and a contradiction of one of America’s most cherished ideals.

Global Views of US Improve, But Still Negative

A BBC poll of citizens of 21 countries shows that the global image of the U.S. has improved slightly in the last year, but is still largely negative. Far more countries (12) have predominantly negative views of the U.S. than have predominantly positive views (6). On average, across all countries, positive views of the U.S. have increased over the last year from 35% to 40%, but those are still outweighed by the negative views (43%, down from 47%). Respondents in each country were asked if they felt "the following countries are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence on the world."

Negative feelings about U.S. influence were particularly strong among America's closest neighbors and allies. In the UK, 45% thought U.S. influence was mostly negative; France, 53%; Mexico 54%; Canada 55%; Spain 56%; and Germany 65%. In a ranking of all the countries in the survey, Germany was viewed as having the most positive influence, whereas the U.S. ranked 10th on the list, just below China.

Another BBC poll of 17 countries showed an overwhelming majority--67%--believing that the election of President Obama "will lead to improved relations between the United States and the rest of the world."

These polls were conducted between November 21, 2008 and February 1, 2009.

The BBC polls confirm that there has been some softening of global views about the U.S., at least partially due to President Obama. But they also reveal the persistence, depth and breadth of animosity to the U.S., and how far the U.S. has to go to recover from the damage to the country's reputation. As I suggested in The End of the American Century, the decline of the U.S. and its reputation was deep-seated, and preceded the Bush administration. George W. Bush made things far worse, but new leadership in D.C.--even a very positive influence like Barack Obama--can not easily or quickly restore America's reputation, or its global leadership.

Shanghai Conference on "The End of the American Century"

A one-day conference on The End of the American Century and related themes will be held in Shanghai on May 9, in connection with the publication of the Chinese version of my book by the Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House. I will make a presentation on the theme of my book.

Other presenters include Professor Ni Lexiong, the principal translator of The End of the American Century; Professor Tang Xiaosong of Guangdong University; and Mr. Ma Guoshou, the Director of the Allwin Economic Institute in Hong Kong.

Topics of presentation include: Is this The End of the American century?; U.S. national strategy and Sino-U.S. relations; the U.S. dollar, global monetary issues and China's future wealth; and sea power and the pattern of global interactions.

The seminar will be held at the Shanghai Friendship Hall, 1333 West Nanjing Road, on Saturday, May 9, from 12:30 to 5:00 p.m.

(Look for a future post with a link to the Chinese site about this event).

Obama in Ankara: Re-setting US Relations with the Muslim World

President Obama has taken deliberate and high-profile initiatives to mend U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world. In the first months of his presidency, he welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to Washington, where he endorsed the “two-state” solution to the Israel-Palestine issue—a proposal long favored by the Arab states. He met with Saudi King Abdullah in London during the G20 Summit, causing a media stir when he bowed to the king, as is customary and respectful with royalty.

Most importantly, he delivered a major address in April to the parliament in Turkey, declaring that “the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” But he went even further, recognizing the richness and influence of Islam, and promising that the U.S. would listen, even when it did not agree:

“I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them.”

This is an extraordinary and important passage, in numerous ways, and encapsulates much of the new orientation and policies of the Obama administration, and not just toward the Arab world. First of all, it is diminishing the centrality in U.S. policy of the war on terrorism—which has so distorted American policies, priorities and values.

Secondly, the speech emphasizes “broader engagement” with the Muslim world, which is both necessary and inevitable, given the size—over one billion—and growing influence of the global Muslim population. The President’s approach to Islam is not just tolerant, but respectful and appreciative of the faith, which has done so much to “shape the world” and which, Obama could have added, has much in common with both Christianity and Judaism.

The President emphasized his intent to listen to others, even when there is disagreement. This fits in with his frequent references to the importance of a great power to recognize past errors, to temper hubris, and to approach other peoples with humility. Such a change from the previous administration could hardly be more dramatic, and has been noted around the world. The Egyptian Foreign Minister said that “Obama’s speech is the first and significant step for easing the tension between the Muslim world and the United States.”

Finally, the President’s personal touch at the end of that passage sent an important signal, both to the global community and to his own citizens, that we are all part of one human community. It was a risky political statement, for it would antagonize and alienate some Americans. But it was also a courageous one—identifying himself with what some consider to be the enemy—and calling on his compatriots for tolerance and understanding.

A Moment of Awe and Joy: Susan Boyle

This blog, and my book, have been pretty unremitting in relaying downbeat news and analysis. So I thought it would not hurt to post a story, and some links, that will bring a joyful lump in the throat to even the most hard-bitten of politicos and wonks.

I am often the last to learn about current fads and popular culture, so I stumbled across the story of Susan Boyle in Saturday's New York Times: Unlikely Singer is YouTube Sensation. If you are one of the few remaining sentients unaware of Susan, as I was, I suggest you first read the story, and then go to YouTube to hear her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream."

Susan Boyle is a 47 year old, unemployed, unmarried church volunteer from tiny Blackburn, Scotland, who competed in the "Britain's Got Talent" show. Both her performance, and the reaction of the glamorous judges, is something to behold. As the writer Letty Cottin Pogrebin wrote in the Huffington Post, the audience and judges "were initially blinded by entrenched stereotypes of age, class, gender and Western beauty standards. . . until her book was opened and everybody saw what was inside."

Read the story, then watch the video at this link.

You might also want to follow this with the video of the other performance mentioned in the Times article, a soaring rendition of Puccini's "Nessum dorma" by Welsh cellphone salesman Paul Potts. It is at this link.

Bartels Finds Declining Equality and Influence

Caleb Hamman

chamman@butler.edu

Economic and political inequality are among the most significant aspects of U.S. decline. Both topics are the focus of the most recent work of Princeton Political Scientist Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. In his book, Bartels sets out to analyze the political causes and consequences of economic inequality, arguing that these are both substantial and urgently relevant to alleviating injustice.

Naturally, Bartels begins by assessing the extent to which economic inequality exists in the United States. After detailed review of current literature and government data, Bartels offers findings very much in line with those of The End of the American Century, essentially that “current levels of inequality rival those of the Roaring Twenties,” making it fitting to speak of a “New Gilded Age” or a “retrogression of historic scope.” As Mason points out, this sort of inequality can lead to monstrous disparities, such as CEOs making more than 500 times their average employee, and has effectively caused the United States to become more unequal than “any advanced industrialized country.”

Like The End of the American Century, Bartels finds that current inequality is not a recent phenomenon, but has been growing sharply since the 1970s. Although this observation is generally accepted, Bartels then goes on to make a less mainstream claim—that increasing economic inequality is a largely a result of public policy. While Bartels readily concedes that economic factors like globalization and technology have contributed to inequality, he staunchly refuses to attribute the entire dynamic to arcane “market forces” or inculpable “economic realities.” Rather, a significant role is played by political intervention, an idea Mason also highlights by discussing issues like the “elimination of the federal welfare system” and the “stagnation of the minimum wage.”

Bartels goes one step further. He argues that U.S. economic inequality is “profoundly shaped by partisan politics”—specifically that “middleclass and poor families” have “fared much worse under Republican presidents than they have under Democratic presidents.” This is not necessarily a novel notion, but rarely has it been supported by such detailed analysis. Using exclusively Census Bureau data and controlling for non-partisan variables such as international crisis, Bartels conclusively demonstrates that the incomes of most have grown at substantially higher rates under Democratic presidents than under their Republican counterparts.

After illustrating his findings with three chapter-length case studies, Bartels turns to his second major point—the political consequences of inequality. Here, his research is particularly disturbing. In calculating the recent responsiveness of U.S. Senators to their constituents, Bartels finds that:

Senators’ roll call votes were quite responsive to the ideological views of their middle- and  high-income constituents. In contrast, the views of low-income constituents had no discernible impact on the voting behavior of the senators…the statistical results are quite consistent in suggesting that the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution were utterly irrelevant.

Examining the potential causes of this mass political exclusion, Bartels finds that “biases” in “senators’ responsiveness to rich and poor constituents are not primarily due to differences between rich and poor constituents in turnout, political knowledge, or contacting.” Rather, “the data are consistent with the hypothesis that senators represented their campaign contributors to the exclusion of other constituents.” As Mason puts it, “When people do not…contribute to political campaigns, they are less likely to be listened to by legislators or policymakers, and their interests are less likely to be taken into account in the political process.”

In analyzing the totality of his findings, Bartels delivers a particularly sobering assessment:

In Aristotle’s terms, our political system seems to be functioning not as a 'democracy,' but as an 'oligarchy.' If we insist on flattering ourselves by referring to is as a democracy, we should be clear that is a starkly unequal democracy.

Despite such foreboding, Bartels attempts to end with a more hopeful thought: Since inequality has been largely been brought about by conscious political action, there seems to be potential for prescriptive change. As Bartels puts it, “We can make these choices.” But as Mason points out, we are quickly running out of time.