Everybody has a plan to save the Middle East. That guy with the bumper sticker does. Most of your friends do. Neocons have a plan. Peaceniks have a plan. Likudniks have a plan. The Bush Administration certainly thinks it has one, and we’re told the Democrats are working on theirs. Tom Clancy imagined deploying the Vatican’s Swiss Guards to keep peace on the Temple Mount. Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis told the Contra Costa Times in July that he knew how to fix the situation—but he kept the details to himself. The policy debate resembles my family’s Thanksgiving dinner conversation after I knock a glass of red wine onto my mother’s white tablecloth: everybody has an idea about how to fix it, everybody is eager to share their thoughts, many ideas sound superficially plausible, and it’s difficult to distinguish among competing solutions.

What we lack in the Middle East are not policy alternatives. The region lacks a policy process—a security framework that helps regional powers eliminate bad policy alternatives and guides them toward shared goals.

Experts here, in Europe, and in the region generally agree on the rough outlines of a durable regional peace: American redeployment from Iraq sooner rather than later, a “two-state solution” between Israel and a democratic and developing Palestine, the persistent disruption of terrorist groups, a commitment to Iraq’s current borders with increased federalism and oil revenue sharing among its factions, the implementation of the agenda set forth in the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Report, improved governance, allowing Iran nuclear energy but prohibiting nuclear weapons, negotiated settlement of the many border disputes, peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, and the eventual integration of Arab states into global economic structures.

But how do we get there from here? And how do we get there with extremists on all sides working to prevent such a pragmatic arrangement?

The 30-year political transformation in eastern Europe may offer some lessons. In the mid-1970s, mutually suspicious and hostile adversaries agreed on a security framework that set in motion events that helped end the Cold War. The so-called Helsinki Process began as a series of negotiations over several years that eased the tension between the Soviet bloc and the west, and enshrined certain fundamental principals: the inviolability of borders, the principle of non-violent resolution of disputes, non-interference in domestic affairs, and—most importantly—a commitment to human rights. At the time, neoconservatives blasted this framework as capitulation to Soviet interests and sanction of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe. Yet by building this basic security framework into East-West dealings, the Helsinki Process achieved significant results:

First, negotiations over the Helsinki Accords got the Soviet Bloc on record supporting human rights. Their flagrant hypocrisy immediately mobilized dissident movements in Eastern Europe.

Second, engaging the Soviets and addressing our shared security concerns eased pressure on the arms race, added stability to the balance of power, and gave the American military needed time to recover from the Vietnam War and the end of the draft.

Third, restoring America’s image as a pragmatic defender of human rights in the 1970s gave the US and President Reagan far greater moral authority to challenge Soviet policy in the 1980s.

Finally, the Helsinki Process established a little-known organization that was ready and able to help former communist regimes consolidate their incipient democracies in the 1990s: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE has a long and important menu of responsibilities, or one whose competencies are so desperately needed in the Middle East: managing state disintegration, disarming and demobilizing militias, helping prevent nuclear proliferation, settling border disputes, cooling ethnic strife. The OSCE also provides election monitors and training for media, public administration, democratic policing, and the rule of law.

Despite some high profile setbacks, the Helsinki Process established a security framework—from Kosovo to Estonia, and Warsaw to Baku—that is trending toward peace, democracy, stability, and prosperity.

We need a similar policy framework in the Middle East today. Commencing a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Helsinki Process will not solve terrorism, democratize the region, end the Iraqi civil war, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb. Bargains would have to be struck with authoritarian regimes we find dangerous (Iran, for instance) in order to get them to the negotiating table, just as we did with the Soviets in the 1970s. Worse yet, this process may take 20 years to bear fruit.

But such a process will empower democrats working to reform their governments. It will undermine the jihadist, anti-Western rhetoric, and could siphon away potential recruits. It may ease the tension between Israel and its Arab neighbors. This process will certainly build some inertia toward our long-term objectives in the Middle East. We could do a lot worse.

Few people question that after 2000, voter confidence in the integrity of American elections is a smidgen shaky. At one level, then, any amount of policy movement on this issue is helpful, whether from the Democrats or the GOP. At another level, though, it's striking just how much the GOP's proposed voter ID laws, like this one just struck down in Missouri and this one being proposed in Congress, so completely miss the mark of addressing voter concern.

Now, voter disenfranchisement is no doubt a grave worry among many. Here's the rub, though: they're troubled that too many people are being disenfranchised, not too few. Remember, even if you don't show ID, your name is still on a registration list at each precinct. To illegally vote, then, you'd have to a) know the name of someone registered, b) know which precinct they were assigned to, and c) hope that you arrived at the precinct to vote before they do. When was the last time you heard of widespread voter complaints of false identity? At the very least, more pressing short-term electoral problems exist, not the least of which are security concerns over compromised electronic voting machines.

Stronger voter ID laws may be a logical compliment to the GOP immigration platform, but the effect is so marginal that it's hard to interpret them as much more than election year red herring.

Yesterday, the news broke that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that increasing Islamic radicalism and terrorism is directly related to the war in Iraq (read the reports from the New York Times here and here). In today’s Times article, Arlen Specter is reported as commenting that “that’s a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to.” Confronted with this new evidence, the United States still has few options in Iraq and none “good.”

On one hand, the U.S. can pull all American personnel out of Iraq. If the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the country would be left in chaos. Iraq will likely spiral into a civil war, and another (or several, depending on the outcome of a civil war) despotic regime will likely gain power over the country. This could radicalize much of the moderate majority against the U.S. for removing the original Ba’ath regime in the beginning. Islamic fundamentalists could then use Iraq as an example of the U.S. destroying an Islamic society and leaving it without assistance. In sum, if the U.S. were to remove all American personnel from Iraq today, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism directed towards the U.S. will likely increase in the long term.

On the other hand, the U.S. can “stay the course” in Iraq. In the long term, though, Americans can count on more of the same with this tactic. Americans are killed in Iraq on a daily basis, and the American presence in Iraq angers many Muslims around the world. This anger is resulting in the increasing Islamic extremism and terrorism, as the NIE reported.

American foreign policymakers need to find the middle ground between these two options. A realignment of foreign policy values may be necessary to find this middle ground. First, policymakers need to determine a gradual Iraq withdrawal plan that is amenable to both the U.S. and Iraq. Second, the U.S. needs to evaluate and reinvest in its public diplomacy program. Typically, a person who has had contact with someone from an “out” group is much less likely to perpetrate violence against that group than someone who has not had exposure to the “out” group. Public diplomacy can bring Americans and American culture to people who might otherwise never have exposure to an American. Finally, the U.S. should invest in more generous aid programs. Aid programs are a way to show that we mean what we say. The U.S. has to prove to Muslims around the world that it does not want to establish an empire and that Americans do see them as our fellow and equal human beings. These last two measures will be costly, but this might be the price of addressing the causes of hatred and violence directed towards the U.S.

In the most recent print issue, Sheila Bapat asked the question "Do clean money elections give women a better chance of winning?" (You can read the full article by clicking the link on the left.) One of the women discussed in the article, Gabrielle Giffords, is performing so well in her bid to replace retiring House member Jim Koble that the other party has abandoned advertising for her opponent. However Giffords has never run "clean". The former state senator, argued in the article that "As a Democrat and as a woman, I feel it is important that I build a fundraising base." This seems to be paying off for her. She has transitioned her success fundraising and building support at the state level to Federal races, which are never "clean elections".

Sen. Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens’ anti-Net Neutrality bill (S. 2686) will soon be coming before the full Senate. The bill not only seeks to destroy the principle of Net Neutrality, but ties it in with a package of other issues favorable to telecom and cable companies. This has enabled them to frame the debate around some of these consumer friendly aspects, but it also obfuscates what the debate is about.

Due to the favorable response to the principles of Net Neutrality, opponents, namely the big three telecom companies and cable providers, have tried to make the debate about cable choice and video franchising. The list of Net Neutrality supporters is impressive, including supporters as diverse as the SEIU, Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition and Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org.

Recently a poll, seen here, released by The Glover Park Group (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) purports to show that attitudes are overwhelmingly favorable toward the Stevens bill. But one look at the survey design and it’s clear that this is little more than a push poll. It is a wholly dishonest measure of public opinion with obvious biases. You don't need the filled in responses to see the problems with its construction. Here’s why:

Page 2
Likelihood if More Cable TV Choice
If there were more choices for cable television service in your area, how likely is it that you would see:
Lower prices
Better customer service
The delivery of new technologies and enhanced services to customers
Higher quality programming, such as high definition television and video on demand

Any reputable pollster will tell you that there is no value in these questions. This question falsely assigns expertise to non-experts. The respondents, first of all, are only offered answers that place “more choices for cable television” in a positive light. They are not asked about any of the drawbacks from the service or even told that there are drawbacks. In short the respondent is unqualified to answer the question and it should be no surprise that these are supported by over 70 percent of respondents.

Page 3
Importance of Legislative Elements
Now I’m going to read you some statements that describe how passing this legislation might benefit consumers. For each statement, I’d like you to tell me how important it is to you, personally?

Create a “Consumer Bill of Rights” that guarantees all consumers full access to legal content on the Internet and prohibits Internet access providers from blocking, degrading, altering, modifying, or changing the data consumers send or receive over the Internet.

If the questionnaire is worded exactly as it was read to the respondent-as you would expect in a public poll-then something is fishy. Where is the description of “this legislation” that was read to the respondent? My inclination is that they didn’t include it because the description was obviously leading. However, nothing else about the poll shows that an effort was made to hold back a bias. So make of this question what you will.

Each of the statements is rated positively by over 75 percent of respondents. Yet again, this is meaningless. These are “costless” answers. They don’t portray any useful information and the respondents aren’t asked to internalize any tradeoffs that come from supporting the statements. It’s the polling equivalent of the “Lower taxes, More services” paradox.

Page 4
By now this really starts to feel like a push poll, and it’s easy to tell the survey was written to persuade, not to gauge attitudes. The questions are ordered to create a positive feeling for the telecoms before asking anything about tradeoffs or costs. That 42 percent of voters say it is most important for their Senator to support the legislation because of “government emergency response efforts” and “Provide funding to help deploy broadband in… schools and libraries” should come as no surprise.

Want Senator to Vote For/Against the Legislation
Based on what you know now, would you want the Senators from your State to vote for or against this legislation?

Here’s the crux! This shows more about how badly the poll was constructed than attitudes. Up to now, the survey has framed the legislation in a very limited way and, of course, in a highly positive light. Then it asks if the respondent would like their Senator to support it. Basically they pit the first option: helping emergency responders, against a second option: NOT helping them. Effectively this question asks “Would you like your Senator to support emergency response efforts or not support these efforts?” It’s no surprise that 80 percent said yes.

Page 5
Which is Most Important to You?
Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:
Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV
OR
Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

Wow! This question might as well ask “What’s better, puppies or toxic waste?” In a reputable poll questions should be neutral and allow the respondent the freedom to answer in without leading him there. Notice how the first option utilizes positive words “benefit,” “choice,” “increased competition” and “lower prices.” The second is rife with negatives: “barring…specialized services” and “for a fee.” This question frames the issue along several dichotomies, not just positivity vs. negativity; but high cost vs. low cost; and choice vs restrictions.

A poll best serves its purpose by telling the client where the public’s attitudes are. The consultant best serves the client by interpreting the survey data, analyzing its meaning and explaining to the client how to increase support. This particular survey is completely useless to a client actually seeking public attitudes. There is no doubt in my mind that this was commissioned to be released so that the results could give the illusion that the public is already behind the Stevens bill.

Ford announced yesterday that they would offer buyouts to many of their employees, as part of a massive restructuring to get the company back to profitability.  Malcolm Gladwell and others have argued that private health care and pension costs are hamstringing Big Business and Big Manufacturing here in the US, compared to foreign companies who benefit from their home countries' public systems.

It looks like the UAW has signed off on Ford's buyout program, as they did with GM's earlier.  This approval is probably necessary for Ford to move forward with its reform.

My question is (for Chris Finn perhaps):  why don't the unions demand an unequivocal statement from Ford that they would support a more robust public health care system?  The details probably wouldn't be too important:
"Ford and other flagship American companies are under great financial stress from the lack of a public health care and pension systems.  We compete with foreign firms that enjoy the freedom to focus on their core business, rather than benefit management.  Ford and the UAW stand together and urge Washington to take this incredible burden off of American business and help make American firms competetive in the globalized economy."  Yadda Yadda.

Just getting them on the record (even if Ford didn't back it with campaign contributions or political support) might change the health care debate's frame to "business competetiveness" or "pro-business".  Frames which probably increase the liklihood of enactment of a comprehensive reform program.

So, why don't the UAW and other unions make this a plank in any buyout (and, perhaps, collective bargaining) agreements?  Would they have to trade that much for such a statement?