Today's funny papers contained a bittersweet "Pearls Before Swine." Pig's attempts at small talk echo weirdly in this blogger's mind. Where's Rat with that stupidity intervention? "Oh, Lord" is right! If this is a (fair & balanced) exposé of blogging, so be it.
[x "Pearls Before Swine"] By Stephan Pastis
Click on image to enlarge.
[Attorney-cum-cartoonist Stephan Pastis sketches this nuanced comic strip tale, which features the arrogant, self-centered, and totally hilarious Rat, who leads his four-legged friends through misadventure after misadventure. Joining him for the journey are Pig, the slow but good-hearted conscience of the strip; Goat, the voice of reason that often goes unheard; and Zebra and the eternally inept Crocodiles who pursue him. Together this mindful menagerie mocks the flaws and shortcomings of human nature through Pastis's cynically biting wit.]
Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.
The Nightingale's Song (1995) considers the effect of Vietnam on the lives of John McCain, Robert McFarlane, James Webb, John Poindexter, and Oliver North. While this blogger could never place himself in the company of these Vietnam veterans, nonetheless this blogger has spent the past forty-four years listening to his own nightingale and holding Lyndon Baines Johnson in contempt for the folly of that disastrous war in "hell in a small place." The election of 2008 was all about hope and looking forward. Kudos to Robert Bryce for pushing the fog of Vietnam away from this blogger's eyes and causing him to look anew at Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President of the United States of America. Amen to sin and redemption. If this is a (fair & balanced) acknowledgment of presidential greatness (past and present), so be it.
[x Austin Fishwrap] LBJ Laid The Groundwork For Obama By Robert Bryce
Four decades after Lyndon Johnson left the White House, his voice, his conscience, continues to reverberate in America. Indeed, Barack Obama's historic win is proof of the enduring triumph of Johnson's presidency. It's the consummation of two pieces of legislation that Johnson forced through Congress: the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Ironically enough, Obabma's victory also marks the end of Texas's dominance in modern presidential politics.
Obama's ascendance comes at the cost of the last Texas president we are likely to see for a long time: George W. Bush, the least popular president in the history of polling.
When Bush moves out of the White House in January, it will end a remarkable epoch in American politics, an era of unrivaled dominance by the Lone Star State. The numbers prove the point: Two of the last three U.S. presidents, and three of the last eight, have been Texans. By the time Bush hands Obama the keys to the White House, a Texan will have been either president or vice president for 28 of the preceding 48 years.
Bush got to the White House by taking advantage of the very trend that Johnson feared: In 1964, after Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he reportedly told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation." Johnson was right. Ever since he moved back to his ranch just west of Austin, the Old South has been solidly Republican and Texas has been the western bulwark of the GOP South.
Texas has been a fairly reliable barometer of success for candidates seeking the White House. Over the past 84 years — 21 elections — only three men have won the presidency without winning Texas: Obama, Bill Clinton (who did it twice, in 1996 and 1992) and Richard Nixon in 1968. Before Nixon, the last president to lose Texas and still win the White House was Calvin Coolidge, who lost the state to John W. Davis in 1924, the same year Congress granted citizenship to Native Americans.
Obama's win signals a shift in power away from the South in general, and, specifically, a shift away from Texas. The states of the old Confederacy aren't reliable Republican territory anymore. And Texas has a dearth of political stars who are likely to emerge as national players in the next few years.
In short, the election of Obama and the triumph of the Democrats signals a major shift in the balance of political power. And that shift is northward. Part of that shift is due to demographics and the huge influx of young voters in this election. It is also due to the enduring strength of Johnson's guts and vision.
Johnson's great sin was his continuation and expansion of the Vietnam War. But his great redemption was in passing the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. By muscling those two pieces of legislation through Congress, Johnson made real the promises set forth in the Declaration of Independence. On March 15, 1965, a week after violence erupted in Selma, Ala., over the rights of blacks to vote, Johnson delivered what's known as the "We Shall Overcome" speech. It contains many great lines, but perhaps the most notable was his rejection of "state's rights," the phrase that segregationists had used for decades to prevent blacks and minorities from voting. Johnson declared, "There is no issue of state's rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights."
Today, Johnson's legacy endures. The United States will soon have a black president from the state that gave us Abraham Lincoln. But it took a white president from Texas to make Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation a reality. And now that Lincoln's promise has reached its fruition with Obama heading for the Oval Office, the state that gave us Johnson has suddenly become far less important.
[Robert Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune magazine. Bryce has been writing about the energy business for nearly two decades. His articles on energy and other subjects have appeared in numerous publications ranging from The Atlantic Monthly to The Guardian and The Nation to The American Conservative. His first book, Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron, was named one of the best non-fiction books of 2002 by Publishers Weekly. His second book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate, was published in 2004. Bryce has appeared on numerous TV and radio programs ranging from the BBC and CNN to PBS and NPR. His latest book is Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence."]
Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.
The Murderers' Row of the NY Fishwrap hammered out a barrage of hits today. The Butcher (of Broadway), former theater critic Frank Rich, confirms this blog's long-held belief that the Dumbos are stupid. The Flatster (aka Thomas Friedman, the author of The Earth Is Flat) has a flashback to the hit film of 1975 — "Jaws" — when he contemplates the huge dorsal fin of the global economic crisis that is circling us today.
[x YouTube/AburameShino123 Channel]
The Cobra (aka Mo Dowd) follows with her analysis of The Hopester's "offer" of a Cabinet plum (aka The Uncertain Tradition according to the diplomatic historian Norman Graebner) to The Hillster. The line o'the day in her piece quotes the Clintonista, James Carville: "...A campaign is the time to stab your enemies and a transition is the time to stab your friends." And batting last, The Nickster (aka Nicholas Kristof), like a desperate college hoops coach, goes to Iowa and finds a middle school student who will be POTUS in 2044? If this is (fair & balanced) commentary, so be it.
[Vannevar Bush Hyperlink — Bracketed Numbers — Directory] [1] The Butcher: Flatline Dumbos [2] The Flatster: A Great White Economic Disaster [3] The Cobra: The Hillster Gambit Is Soooo Un-Clintonian [4] The Nickster: The U.S. President In 2044 Will Be....
Election junkies in acute withdrawal need suffer no longer. Though the exciting Obama-McCain race is over, the cockfight among the losers has only just begun. The conservative crackup may be ugly, but as entertainment, it’s two thumbs up!
Over at Fox News, Greta Van Susteren has been trashing the credibility of her own network’s chief political correspondent, Carl Cameron, for his report on Sarah Palin’s inability to identify Africa as a continent, while Bill O’Reilly valiantly defends Cameron’s honor. At Slate, a post-mortem of conservative intellectuals descended into name-calling, with the writer Ross Douthat of The Atlantic labeling the legal scholar Douglas Kmiec a “useful idiot.”
In an exuberant class by himself is Michael Barone, a ubiquitous conservative commentator who last week said that journalists who trash Palin (more than a few of them conservatives) do so because “she did not abort her Down syndrome baby.” He was being “humorous,” he subsequently explained to Politico, though the joke may be on him. Barone writes for U.S. News & World Report, where his 2008 analyses included keepers like “Just Call Her Sarah ‘Delano’ Palin.” Just call it coincidence, but on Election Day, word spread that the once-weekly U.S. News was downsizing to a monthly — a step closer to the fate of Literary Digest, the weekly magazine that vanished two years after its straw poll predicted an Alf Landon landslide over Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936.
Will the 2008 G.O.P. go the way of the 1936 G.O.P., which didn’t reclaim the White House until 1952? Even factoring in the Democrats’ time-honored propensity for self-immolation, it’s not beyond reason. The Republicans are in serious denial. A few heretics excepted, they hope to blame all their woes on their unpopular president, the inept McCain campaign and their party’s latent greed for budget-busting earmarks.
The trouble is far more fundamental than that. The G.O.P. ran out of steam and ideas well before George W. Bush took office and Tom DeLay ran amok, and it is now more representative of 20th-century South Africa during apartheid than 21st-century America. The proof is in the vanilla pudding. When David Letterman said that the 10 G.O.P. presidential candidates at an early debate looked like “guys waiting to tee off at a restricted country club,” he was the first to correctly call the election.
On Nov. 4, that’s roughly the sole constituency that remained loyal to the party — minus its wealthiest slice, a previously solid G.O.P. stronghold that turned blue this year (in a whopping swing of 34 percentage points). The Republicans lost every region of the country by double digits except the South, which they won by less than double digits (9 points). They took the South only because McCain, who ran roughly even with Obama among whites in every other region, won Southern whites by 38 percentage points.
Those occasional counties that tilted more Republican in 2008 tended to be not only the least diverse, but also the most rural, least educated and slowest-growing in population. McCain-Palin did score a landslide among white evangelical Christians, though even in that demographic Obama shaved the G.O.P. margin by seven percentage points from 2004.
The Republicans did this to themselves, yet a convenient amnesia can be found in conservatives’ post-Election Day soul searching. There’s endless hand-wringing about Bush and McCain blunders and Abramoff-Stevens corruption, but there’s barely any mention of the nasty cultural brawls that defined the G.O.P. campaign narrative this year as the party clung bitterly once more to its 40-year-old “Southern strategy.”
There were as many Republican prejudices as candidates. In primary season, the whispered antipathy among some conservative evangelicals toward Mormons grew so loud that Mitt Romney felt compelled to give a speech defending his faith (but was so fearful of inciting further wrath that he said the word Mormon only once). The conservative gatekeeper Michael Medved spotlighted another whisper campaign in May, writing that the popular moderate Florida G.O.P. governor Charlie Crist had been “single since his divorce in 1980 (after a marriage that lasted only a year)” and was the subject of “nasty rumors of possible gay activity.” Crist announced his engagement to a woman weeks later, but by then he was no longer a serious contender for the ticket.
John McCain also might have held Florida had he prevailed with his first choice of a running mate, the pro-abortion-rights Joe Lieberman, but G.O.P. ayatollahs scuttled both him and the abortion moderate Tom Ridge, who might have helped win Pennsylvania. Not that McCain was innocent in these exclusionary escapades. He strenuously sought the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee, even though Hagee had blamed gays for Hurricane Katrina, referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore,” and theorized that Hitler came about because God’s “top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”
The icing on this rancid cake was the race-baiting of Obama and the immigrant bashing by G.O.P. hopefuls who tried to outdo the nativist fringe candidate Tom Tancredo. Yet Republican denial is unabated. In an interview with Palin the weekend before the election, a conservative Wall Street Journal editorialist asked whether “the G.O.P. doesn’t in fact have a perception problem, that it is no longer viewed as a big tent.” A perception problem? Hello — how about a reality problem?
Yet the G.O.P. really does believe that it’s all about perception. That’s why its 2000 convention offered a stage full of break dancers and gospel singers, wildly outnumbering the black delegates in the audience. Bush and Karl Rove regarded diversity as a public-relations issue to be finessed with marketing. Round up some black extras! Sell “compassionate conservatism” by posing Bush incessantly with black schoolchildren! Problem solved!
The 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign Web site even boasted a “Compassion” archive of photos of Bush with black folk, including Colin Powell. McCain used the same playbook this year, when he headed south to emote over Katrina victims and stock his own Web site with pictures depicting his adventures in black America. He had been a no-show in New Orleans during the six months after the hurricane hit, when his presence might have made a difference.
In defeat, the party’s thinking remains unchanged. Its leaders once again believe they can bamboozle the public into thinking they’re the “party of Lincoln” by pushing forward a few minority front men or women. The reason why they are promoting Palin and the recently elected Indian-American governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as the party’s “future” is not just that they are hard-line social conservatives; they are also the only prominent Republican officeholders under 50 who are not white men. The G.O.P. will have to dip down to a former one-term lieutenant governor of Maryland, Michael Steele, to put a black public face on its national committee.
Such window dressing aside, there remains only one Republican idea for reaching out to minority voters: Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recommends pandering to socially conservative blacks and Hispanics with yet more hyperventilation about same-sex marriage. Weird though it may be, gays were the sole minority group that actually voted slightly more Republican this year (though still going Democratic by 70 to 27 percent). Pitting blacks and Latinos against them could open up a whole new bloody front in the G.O.P. civil war.
The only other widespread post-election conservative ideas are Bush 2000 retreads (market-based health care and education reform). Jindal offers generic gab about how the party must offer Americans “real solutions” and “substance,” but he has yet to offer a real solution to his own state’s gaping $1 billion budget shortfall. Indeed, the only two “new” ideas that the G.O.P. is pushing in defeat are those they condemn when practiced by Democrats: celebrity and identity politics. Palin’s manic post-election publicity tour, which may yet propel her and “the first dude” to “Dancing With the Stars,” is almost a parody of the McCain ad likening Obama to Paris and Britney. Anyone who says so is promptly called out for sexism by the P.C. police of the newly “feminist” G.O.P.
At the risk of being so reviled, let me point out that in the marathon of Palin interviews last week, the single most revealing exchange had nothing to do with her wardrobe or the “jerks” (as she called them) around McCain. It came instead when Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked for some substance by inviting her to suggest “one or two ideas” that Republicans might have to offer. “Well, a lot of Republican governors have really good ideas for our nation,” she responded, without specifying anything except that “it’s all about free enterprise and respecting equality.” Well, yes, but surely there’s some actual new initiative worth mentioning, Blitzer followed up. “Gah!” replied the G.O.P.’s future. “Nothing specific right now!”
The good news for Democrats is a post-election Gallup poll finding that while only 45 percent of Americans want to see Palin have a national political future (and 52 percent of Americans do not), 76 percent of Republicans say bring her on. The bad news for Democrats is that these are the exact circumstances that can make Obama cocky and Democrats sloppy. The worse news for the country is that at a time of genuine national peril we actually do need an opposition party that is not brain-dead.
[Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times who writes a weekly 1500-word essay on the intersection of culture and news. Rich has been at the paper since 1980. His columns and articles for the Week in Review, the Arts & Leisure section and the Magazine draw from his background as a theater critic (known as "The Butcher On Broadway") and observer of art, entertainment and politics. Before joining The Times, Rich was a film critic at Time magazine, the New York Post, and New Times magazine. He was a founding editor of the Richmond (Va.) Mercury, a weekly newspaper, in the early 1970s. Rich is the author of a childhood memoir, Ghost Light (2000), a collection of drama reviews, Hot Seat: Theater Criticism for The New York Times, 1980-1993 (1998), and The Theatre Art of Boris Aronson (with Lisa Aronson, 1987). Rich is a graduate of the Washington, DC public schools. He earned a BA degree in American History and Literature from Harvard College in 1971.] ________________________________________________________ [2]—Back To Directory Gonna Need A Bigger Boat By Thomas L. Friedman
Barack Obama surely has one of the toughest leadership challenges any incoming president has ever faced. We’re in the midst of a terrible economic meltdown, the current administration has lost all credibility, the House of Representatives is full of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, and the public is being whipsawed between free-market fundamentalists preaching the virtues of just letting the market rip and left-wingers who think we can punish Wall Street while protecting Main Street. It feels like a mess with no one in charge.
Now is when we need a president who has the skill, the vision and the courage to cut through this cacophony, pull us together as one nation and inspire and enable us to do the one thing we can and must do right now:
Go shopping.
Obama can’t wait until Jan. 20 to weigh in on this. If we don’t stimulate the global economy fast enough and big enough, some of Obama’s inaugural balls might be held in soup kitchens.
When President Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11, he was right. We needed to stimulate the economy then. The problem was that the Bush economic team never turned off the green light and told people to “go saving.” So with easy credit seemingly endlessly available, American consumers saved virtually nothing and bid up housing prices to record levels. Retailers expanded stores and China expanded factories to accommodate all the shopping. It was quite a party. We had banks in America giving mortgages to people whose only qualification “was that they could fog up a knife,” one mortgage broker told me.
But when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. When these reckless mortgages eventually blew up, it led to a credit crisis. Banks stopped lending. That soon morphed into an equity crisis, as worried investors liquidated stock portfolios. The equity crisis made people feel poor and metastasized into a consumption crisis, which is why purchases of cars, appliances, electronics, homes and clothing have just fallen off a cliff. This, in turn, has sparked more company defaults, exacerbated the credit crisis and metastasized into an unemployment crisis, as companies rush to shed workers.
Governments are having a problem arresting this deflationary downward spiral — maybe because this financial crisis combines four chemicals we have never seen combined to this degree before, and we don’t fully grasp how damaging their interactions have been, and may still be.
Those chemicals are: 1) massive leverage — by everyone from consumers who bought houses for nothing down to hedge funds that were betting $30 for every $1 they had in cash; 2) a world economy that is so much more intertwined than people realized, which is exemplified by British police departments that are financially strapped today because they put their savings in online Icelandic banks — to get a little better yield — that have gone bust; 3) globally intertwined financial instruments that are so complex that most of the C.E.O.’s dealing with them did not and do not understand how they work — especially on the downside; 4) a financial crisis that started in America with our toxic mortgages. When a crisis starts in Mexico or Thailand, we can protect ourselves; when it starts in America, no one can.
You put this much leverage together with this much global integration with this much complexity and start the crisis in America and you have a very explosive situation.
If you are going to fight a global financial panic like this, you have to go at it with overwhelming force — an overwhelming stimulus that gets people shopping again and an overwhelming recapitalization of the banking system that gets it lending again. I just hope the U.S. Treasury has enough money to do it. When you look at the way A.I.G. and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are eating money, you start to wonder.
And that brings me back to Obama. We need a leader who can look the country in the eye and say clearly: “We have not seen this before. There are only two choices now, folks: doing everything we can to shore up banks and homeowners or risk a systemic meltdown.”
Yes, that may mean rescuing some bankers who don’t deserve rescuing, while also helping prudent bankers who were doing the right things. And, yes, that may mean rescuing reckless home buyers who never should have taken out mortgages and now can’t pay them back, while not aiding people who saved prudently and are still meeting their mortgage payments.
No, it’s not fair. But fairness is not on the menu anymore. We will deal with that later. Right now we need to throw everything we can at this problem to make sure this recession doesn’t spiral down into a depression. This is no time for half-measures.
If you want to know where we are right now, rent the movie “Jaws.” We’re at that moment when Roy Scheider first sets eyes on the Great White Shark and comes back and says to the skipper, with eyes wide with fear: “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
[Thomas L. Friedman became The New York Times' foreign-affairs columnist in 1995. He won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, his third (The earlier Prizes were awarded in 1983 and 1988.) Pulitzer for this paper. Friedman's latest book, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, (2005) won the inaugural Goldman Sachs/Financial Times Business Book of the Year award. Friedman received a B.A. degree in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University in 1975. In 1978 he received a Master of Philosophy degree in Modern Middle East studies from Oxford.] ________________________________________________________ [3]—Back To Directory Team Of Frenemies By Maureen Dowd
It’s a cool idea, Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
At long last, the feminist icon would represent the feminist ideal of getting a room of her own, all on her own.
Running for the Senate and the presidency, Hillary felt entitled to get money, endorsements and support because she was the wife of Bill Clinton — and at times the victim of Bill Clinton.
If she became secretary of state, she would be getting the job despite her husband — and because of her own transformation in the primaries from a legacy applicant to a scrappy one.
After balking during his wife’s campaign at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library, Bill would have to stop spewing about Barack and start spilling to him.
As Newsweek reported, last January Bill got so worked up in a phone call with Donna Brazile that he ranted, “If Barack Obama is nominated, it will be the worst denigration of public service.” The magazine also revealed that “the former president had amassed an 81-page list of all the unfair and nasty things the Obama campaign had said, or was alleged to have said, about Hillary Clinton.”
If Hillary wants to be Madame Secretary, Bill will have to put away the 81-page list and pick up the 63 questions in the Obama vetting questionnaire, an unprecedented deep probe of potential cabinet members and their spouses.
Even if Bill scurries past the questions on sexual harassment claims, conflicts of interest, civil suits, real estate holdings, federal investigations, diaries, gifts worth more than $50 and Internet aliases, the Clintons will still have to grapple with No. 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.” (It would take books, and it has.)
Not to mention No. 62: “Do you know anyone or any organization ... that might take steps, overtly or covertly, fairly or unfairly, to criticize your nomination, including any news organization?”
In his desire to channel the character of Lincoln and create a team of rivals on his cabinet, Obama may be willing to overlook the array of conflict-of-interest issues posed by the rivals he vanquished.
(Lincoln appointed a New York senator, William Seward, as his secretary of state. He promptly bought Alaska, known as “Seward’s Folly,” which ended up bringing us the folly of Sarah Palin).
There are Obama aides and supporters who are upset that The One who won on change has ushered in déjà vu all over again. The man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons has been stocking up on Clintonites.
How, one may ask, can he put Hillary — who voted to authorize the Iraq war without even reading the intelligence assessment — in charge of patching up a foreign policy and a world riven by that war?
You can hear the gnashing of teeth from John Kerry — who thought the job was promised to him in return for his endorsement after New Hampshire — and Bill “Judas” Richardson, who met Friday with Obama in Chicago to discuss the job.
And Joe Biden would probably like a little less blond ambition at State so he could be the shadow secretary. But as James Carville has said, a campaign is the time to stab your enemies and a transition is the time to stab your friends.
Hillary is probably ready to ankle out of the Senate. The point of the Senate was to be a staging area for her presidential race, and that’s done.
She’s not a player there. Her bid to get the health care issue away from Ted Kennedy was stymied recently when Kennedy refused her request to create a special subcommittee that she would head.
And why should the woman who made 18 million cracks go back to being junior to Chuck Schumer, if she could be toasted from Dublin to Dubai?
On the down side, Hillary would be taking over a big and demoralized government bureaucracy, after proving with her campaign that she does not know how to run a big and demoralized group of people.
On the up side, she would never have to exaggerate her foreign policy résumé again; this time, she really would be brokering peace and flying into places where they’d try to fire at her.
And if she worked hard enough — and she would — she could restore clarity to Foggy Bottom, the striped-pants center of diplomacy so maligned and misused by W. and Dick Cheney on their Sherman’s march to war in Iraq and in their overwrought bid to become the only hyperpower.
If Barry chooses Hillary as secretary of state, a woman who clearly intimidated him and taught him to be a better pol in the primaries, it doesn’t signal the return of the Clinton era. It says the opposite: If you have a president who’s willing to open up his universe to other smart, strong people, if you have a big dog who shares his food dish, the Bill Clinton era is truly over.
Appointing a Clinton in the cabinet would be so un-Clintonian.
[Maureen Dowd received the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, with the Pulitzer committee particularly citing her columns on the impeachment of Bill Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Dowd joined The New York Times as a reporter in 1983, after writing for Time magazine and the now-defunct Washington Star. At The Times, Dowd was nominated for a 1992 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting, then became a columnist for the paper's editorial page in 1995. Dowd's first book was a collection of columns entitled Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk (2004). Her second book followed in 2005: Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide. Dowd earned a bachelor's degree from DC's Catholic University in 1973.] ________________________________________________________ [4]—Back To Directory Talia For President By Nicholas D. Kristof
For those of you who don’t happen to be named Barack, change in the next four years might seem a spectator sport.
In the aftermath of a campaign, it’s natural to think that the agenda now is in the hands of our newly elected leaders, and that the agents of change will be government officials in Washington. Yet the best proof that you don’t need a White House pass to accomplish change comes from youthful social entrepreneurs around the country. Too naïve to realize that they are powerless, these kids are flexing remarkable muscle.
If your image of a philanthropist is a stout, gray geezer, then meet Talia Leman, an eighth grader in Iowa who loves soccer and swimming, and whose favorite subject is science. I’m supporting her for president in 2044.
When Talia was 10 years old, she saw television clips of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and decided to help. She galvanized other kids and started a movement to trick-or-treat at Halloween for coins for hurricane victims.
The movement caught the public imagination, Talia made it on the “Today” show, and the campaign raised more than $10 million. With that success behind her, Talia organized a program called RandomKid to help other young social entrepreneurs organize and raise money.
At randomkid.org, young people can link up with others to participate in various philanthropic ventures. On the Web site, Talia has organized a campaign to build a school in rural Cambodia, backed by children in 48 states and 19 countries.
Likewise, she’s working with schools in seven states to provide clean water for rural African villages. She is a frequent guest speaker at other schools, although she acknowledges she’s just a bit intimidated when she visits a high school.
“I’m only in middle school, so I see high schoolers as the big kids,” she said. “When I go to high school to pass out Unicef boxes, I see them as the big, scary ones.”
At a dinner a few days ago in New York, Talia was honored by World of Children, an organization that encourages youth activism and calls its awards the “Nobel Prizes for children.” If kids like Talia can accomplish so much, without credit cards or driving licenses, just imagine what adults could achieve.
Young people have often been engaged in social movements, of course, but today’s activists are younger than ever. More important, these kids aren’t just protesters but rather are “social entrepreneurs,” pioneering clever ways to “give back” just as a business entrepreneur fills a market niche.
If the emblematic 1960s youth was an anti-Vietnam protester, and the 1980s emblem was a geek assembling computers in the garage, then today’s is a kid uploading videos to YouTube to raise money for anti-malarial bed nets in Africa.
Frankly, these kinds of initiatives have a mixed record in terms of helping the poor in a cost-effective way. But they have a superb record in enlightening and educating the organizers.
The godfather of the social entrepreneur movement is Bill Drayton, who founded an organization called Ashoka to support “change-makers.” Now he is heavily focused on nurturing student social entrepreneurs, and he has started an organization called Youth Venture to support them. But Mr. Drayton is frustrated that many youngsters are too passive and are never encouraged to run anything of their own.
“This is like foot-binding of the spirit,” he said. “We can’t imagine what the Chinese were doing when they bound girls’ feet, but now we’re doing it to our children’s spirits.”
The Girl Scouts organization has also led the way in embracing social entrepreneurship, training girls how to start their own movements. It’s a step toward a “you-figure-out-how-to-get-it-done” model of citizen participation in the 21st century.
“Social entrepreneurship is taking root across the age spectrum,” said David Bornstein, whose book “How to Change the World” is the bible of would-be change-makers. But he says that the movement has been stifled in some privileged communities, perhaps because students in such places are so stressed by academic pressures that they can’t find the time for philanthropy.
President-elect Barack Obama won the White House partly because of a grass-roots army of youthful volunteers; he showed the power of social movements and social networking in presidential politics. Those same forces can be just as powerful on behalf of humanitarian causes.
It would be a shame if the political armies took a break until the 2012 elections. Only one person can be president, but as Talia and so many kids show, absolutely anybody can be a change-maker.
[Nicholas D. Kristof writes op-ed columns that appear twice each week in The New York Times. A two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, he previously was associate managing editor of The Times, responsible for the Sunday Times. Kristof graduated from Harvard College and then studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship. In 1990 Mr. Kristof and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, also a Times journalist, won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of China's Tiananmen Square democracy movement. They were the first married couple to win a Pulitzer for journalism. Mr. Kristof won a second Pulitzer in 2006, for commentary for what the judges called "his graphic, deeply reported columns that, at personal risk, focused attention on genocide in Darfur and that gave voice to the voiceless in other parts of the world."]
Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.
