|
A Communitarian Letter #9
Recent Diversity Within Unity Platform Endorsers:
February 2006
Michael Opielka – Jena, Germany
Frank W. Heuberger – Mainz, Germany
Paul Anderson – Elora, TN
Rosa Aparicio – Madrid, Spain
Charles Westin – Stockholm, Sweden
March 2006:
Riva Kstoryano – Paris, France
Hasan Jashari – Tetova, Macedonia
Eliezer Ben-Rafael – Tel-Aviv, Israel
Aristide R. Zolberg – New York, NY
To read the text of our Diversity Within Unity Platform and to see a list of previous endorsers, please visit: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/diversity_within_unity.html
Recent Publications by Amitai Etzioni:
“Religion and the State: Why Moderate Religious Teaching Should Be Promoted”
Harvard International Review, Spring 2006
Excerpts: “The main fault line, relevant to analysis and policymaking for Western nations and new civic groups, lies not between religion and secularism but between fundamentalism on the one side and moderate religion and secularism on the other.”
“It is not religion, but fundamentalism, that is incompatible with human rights, democratic societies, and tolerance of others.”
View online at: http://dspace.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/3517/1/A352+Religion+and+State.pdf
“Leveraging Islam”
The National Interest, Spring 2006
Excerpt: “…only moderate Islam can serve as a main source for a moral culture based on persuasion rather than coercion, where individuals accept their responsibilities not because they fear cruel punishments and moral squads but because they find themselves morally bound.”
View online at: http://dspace.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/3521/1/A353+-+Leveraging+Islam.pdf
If you would like a hard copy of either article, please email your request to comnet@gwu.edu.
“Leaving Race Behind: Our growing Hispanic population creates a golden opportunity ”
The American Scholar, Spring 2006
Excerpt: “How Hispanics view themselves and how they are viewed by others are among the most important factors affecting whether or not we can end race as a major social divide in America.”
View at:http://dspace.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/3536/1/A354+-+Leaving+Race+Behind.pdf
“Let them eat cake?”
The National Law Journal, March 13, 2006
I took a year of leave from my teaching at Columbia University to serve as senior adviser to the Carter White House. I got Potomac fever and decided to stay in Washington to be close to politics. In the 25 years that followed, I saw and learned (I believe) a great deal. However, rarely have I witnessed a more extreme example of politics as the theater of the absurd than I see these days. In the wake of the Abramoff scandals, Congress members are falling over each other as they rush to introduce lobbying reforms. Practically all those introduced so far call for trimming the icing on the cake, but leaving the cake untouched-hardly a persuasive way to slim down.
To understand the ways lobbyists work in Washington-and what Congress says it will do about limiting their influence and what it is not even considering-one must draw a sharp line between what is essential for Congress members and what are attractive but marginal perks. It is essential for Congress members to be able to raise the millions of dollars re-election campaigns require. True, many Congress members have secure seats; however the size of their campaign chest is one reason their seats are so safe-it helps deters challengers.
In short, campaign financing is the cake congressional members must feed on regularly. True, theoretically they could eat bread; they could raise the essential funds by collecting small donations from a large number of individuals. These donations could replace the large sums they now get from lobbyists representing special interests such as real estate, teachers' unions, banks and Indian casinos. However, those few politicians who have tried to go down this road (which has the virtue of not leaving you obligated to any special interests) found out that it is very time-consuming and costly. Hence, although they delight in getting small donations (especially over the Internet), they rely on lobbyists for the funds essential for staying in office. In comparison, free elegant lunches, seats in skyboxes, all-paid first class trips to Las Vegas, etc., etc., are merely the icing on the cake.
Suggested reforms are paltry
Now look at the suggested reforms also known as the ethics package:
The House has approved a bill that requires lobbyists to name legislators on disclosure forms for gifts costing $5 or more. But no one is laying a glove on the hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbyists provide for campaign financing, nor are there limits on what lobbyists can give to family members. And the Senate has yet to act on this gift limitation.
The House voted to bar former members who become lobbyists from the House floor and gym. They are now "limited" to the dining room and to the scores of other places near the Hill where one can have meals and otherwise rub shoulders with legislators.
A bill barring members of Congress from benefiting from lobbyist-paid meals and trips ran into opposition. Opponents suggested instead faster and fuller disclosure of such favors.
None of these marginal limitations on gifts sailed through Congress so far. Instead they are occasions for arguments back and forth, which make them seem important. Actually, unwittingly or deliberately, these subminimal reforms distract attention from what must be done: greatly limiting the amounts of funds lobbyists can donate to campaign financing. In this department, business continues as usual. Not only do members of Congress continue to receive large amounts of money, they actively solicit funds from the 11,500 lobbyists on K Street and elsewhere. They are not men and women of bad character (most of them), but they have no choice. Without these funds, they are out of a job, not merely short on perks.
There are those who say that donations merely buy "access." However, even if this were true, granting opportunities to lay out their case to representatives of special interests with deep pockets and not to others (after all there are only so many hours per day for such "access") tilts the political system toward those already most endowed.
And the corporations and business associations and labor unions and others who shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars would be very unwise indeed, actually in violation of their fiduciary duties, if they got nothing concrete in return.
Only if the media and the voters scoff at the theater of reform and demand getting down to the basics, can we even have a reasonable debate about what must be done about curbing Congress members' insatiable appetite for campaign contributions and what they are willing to do to keep them coming.
“Das Leben nach Bush" (The World After Bush)
Der Tagesspiegel, March 16, 2006
In den USA beginnt die Debatte über eine neue Außenpolitik Von Amitai Etzioni
Die bevorstehenden Kongresswahlen und die ersten Positionskämpfe vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen 2008 haben in Amerika eine ernsthafte Debatte über die Richtung der Außenpolitik nach Bush ausgelöst. Sie begann mit dem öffentlichen Streit zwischen dem Vordenker Francis Fukuyama und seinen neokonservativen Kumpels, der an die alten Kämpfe zwischen Stalinisten und Trotzkisten erinnerte.
In einem Essay für das „New York Times Magazine“ mit dem Titel „After Neoconservatism“ hatte Fukuyama die weltweiten Misserfolge von Bushs Außenpolitik aufgelistet. Das Wichtigste daran war, dass er die Verantwortlichen für US-Außenpolitik aufforderte, eine Kernlektion der Soziologie zu beachten: Geschichte kann man nicht beschleunigen, auch wenn man hier und da vielleicht ein wenig nachhelfen kann. Merkwürdigerweise hatten gerade die Schriften von Fukuyama eine Quelle für das „Wir-demokratisieren-jetzt-mal-eben-den-Rest-der Welt-Leitmotiv“ der Neocons und der Bush-Regierung dargestellt. Die Erfahrung der vergangenen Jahre – nicht nur in Irak und Afghanistan, sondern auch in Russland, Lateinamerika, Haiti und Bosnien – zeigt jedoch, dass der große Demokratisierungsschub ausgeblieben ist, and dass daran auch eine Supermacht nicht viel ändern kann. Fukuyama kommt zum Ergebnis, dass das „Verlangen nach Demokratie und Reform aus den Ländern selbst kommen muss“. Er erwartet jedoch, dass schließlich alle Nationen zu liberalen Demokratien werden. Das ist das Ziel, das die USA unterstützen sollten, jedoch nur durch friedliche Mittel.
Aus meiner soziologischen Sicht ist eine viel grundlegendere Veränderung der US-Außenpolitik vonnöten. Anstatt zu versuchen, sich mit den Liberalen in der muslimischen Welt zu verbinden (die USA haben gerade 85 Millionen Dollar für die Verbreitung der Demokratie in Iran zur Verfügung gestellt), sollte die Regierung erkennen, dass die Mehrheit der Muslime moderat, aber nicht liberal ist. Sie sind gegen Meinungsfreiheit oder die Rechte der Frauen, akzeptieren aber, dass andere Länder andere Religionen haben, und, vor allem, sie lehnen Gewalt ab – als Invasion anderer Länder oder als Terror.
Umfragen belegen, dass von den 140 Millionen Muslimen in Indonesien, den 70 Millionen in der Türkei und den 32 Millionen in Marokko weniger als 15 Prozent Selbstmordattentate unterstützen. Es gibt viele Hinweise, dass auch unter den Muslimen in Indien, Malaisia und Bangladesch die Unterstützung für den Terror gering ist. 84 Prozent der Palästinenser sind für eine friedliche Lösung des Konflikts mit Israel. (Viele der Hamas-Wähler haben wegen deren Integrität und sozialen Diensten so gestimmt.)
Langfristig ist es entscheidend zu verstehen, dass der Endpunkt der Geschichte möglicherweise eine Herrschaftsform ist, die liberale Elemente kombiniert mit einer stärkeren Verpflichtung für die Allgemeinheit und einem größeren Bewusstsein für die spirituellen, religiösen und kulturellen Bedürfnisse als es das Modell tut, das Fukuyama und die USA befürworten.
Obwohl es stimmt, dass Länder wie China „es schaffen wollen“, sich gerade in einem Konsumrausch befinden, halte ich das für eine Kinderkrankheit, aus der Nationen herauswachsen. Die Europäer haben vorgemacht, dass man mit einer sozialen Marktwirtschaft und einem kulturellen Bewusstsein ökonomisch erfolgreich sein kann. Auch die USA durchlaufen in regelmäßigen Abständen Phasen, in denen das „soziale Kapital“, die Verpflichtung für die Gesellschaft und moralische Werte stärker im Vordergrund stehen – und nicht nur Rechte und Freiheiten und das Materielle. Das Ende der Geschichte liegt womöglich irgendwo zwischen einer liberalen und einer übertrieben kommunitaristischen Gesellschaft.
All das ist jedoch ohne Bedeutung, solange Bush noch an der Macht ist, und das, was man die Ära der Restauration nennen könnte, noch nicht eingesetzt hat, in der die Glaubwürdigkeit, der gute Name, die politischen Allianzen, und die finanzielle Solidität der USA wiederhergestellt werden.
Der Autor lehrt an der George Washington University und ist Mitbegründer des Kommunitarismus.
Upcoming Events:
The Diversity Within Project at The George Washington University,
in cooperation with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
and the Representation of Baden-Württemberg to the EU
Diversity Within Unity:
Rights and Responsibilities of Immigrants and their New Homeland
April 26, 2006
9:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Europe Room of the Representation of Baden-Württemberg, Rue Belliard 60-62, Brussels
Tentative Schedule
The focus of the summit is on dialogue about the rights and responsibilities of immigrants and their new homeland. The meeting will be divided into several sessions, each of which will have one or two dialogue starters. Most of the time, however, will be dedicated to give and take among the participants, whose number will be limited to ensure ample opportunity for dialogue. The first session will be an overview of the Diversity Within Unity (DWU) platform and the following sessions will concentrate on schooling, religion, citizenship tests, shared values, and shared language. To ensure a productive dialogue, the summit is dedicated to approaching these issues along the lines of the Diversity Within Unity platform. Diversity Within Unity aims to change the contours of the debate by positing an alternative to strict assimilation and unbounded multiculturalism. (The platform and a list of its endorsers are available at http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/diversity_within_unity.html.)
- 9:30 – 9:45: Welcome by Director of CEPS and the Head of the Representation of Baden-Württemberg to the EU
- 9:45 – 11:45: Session I. Overview of the DWU approach.
- Introduction to DWU by Amitai Etzioni.
- Dialogue starters:
- British Minister of State for immigration and citizenship Tony McNulty
- British Member of Parliament David Willetts.
- 11:15 – 11:30: Coffee Break
- 11:30 – 1:00: Session II. Schooling in a DWU approach.
- 1:00 – 2:30: Session III. Working lunch. State and Religion in a DWU approach.
- Dialogue starters to be announced
- 2:30 – 4:00: Session IV. Shared values, shared language, citizenship tests, and immigration filters.
- Dialogue starters:
- Danish Minister for Refugee, Immigration, and Integration Affairs Rikke Hvilshøj
- 4:00 – 4:15: Coffee Break
- 4:15 – 6:30: Session V. Concluding session on other topics and future actions.
- Dialogue starter:
- German Secretary of State for the Ministry of the Interior Peter Altmaier.
***To reiterate, this is a tentative plan***
Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics presents…
Constituting Globalization: Actors, Arenas and Outcomes
IAAEG, University of Trier, Germany
June 30-July 2, 2006
Author-Meets-the-Critics session
Wilson Carey McWilliams’ “The Active Society Revisited” – a collection of essays
Moderator:
Edward W. Lehman - New York University
Discussants:
Wolfgang Streeck - Max Planck Institute, Germany
Walter Reese-Schaefer - University of Halle, Germany
Reinoud Bosch - European University Institute, The Netherlands
Note: date and time of this session are yet to be determined
Edward Lehman will also be hosting 7 other sessions sponsored by Research Network A, Communitarian Ideals and Civil Society.
*Please visit http://www.sase.org/homepage.html for more details*
Summer Internship Opportunity
Interested in interning at The Communitarian Network in Washington, DC for Summer 2006?
Send your resume to comnet@gwu.edu, subject line: Summer Internship.
|
