DECEMBER 2008 Volume LXXIV No.

12

$8.00

eizing the Opportunities 530  S Address by RICHARD MCCORMACK, Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch, former
Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, and G-7 Sherpa for President George H.W. Bush

The Constitution  534  Address by RICHARD J. HARDY, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political
Science at Western Illinois University

limate Change Adaptation 547  C Address by JUDITH RODIN, President of the Rockefeller Foundation Identify, Interrogate, Innovate  553  Address by LAUREN ZALAZNICK, President of Women and Lifestyle Entertainment
Networks, NBC Universal

orking Together 557  W Address by ANNE-IMELDA M. RADICE, Director of the U.S. Institute of Museum and
Library Services

eneric Medicines 559  G Address by ALEX M. AZAR II, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and
Communications, Eli Lilly and Company

Speech of the Month

Educations Role  563  Address by BEVERLY K. EAKMAN, author, columnist and lecturer

THE BESt tHOUGHtS OF tHE BESt MINDS ON CURRENt NAtIONAL QUEStIONS Impartial Constructive Authentic

530

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

Seizing the Opportunities

PERSPECTIVES ON THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Address by RICHARD MCCORMACK, Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch, former Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, and G-7 Sherpa for President George H.W. Bush Delivered to 2008 Taiwan Business Alliance Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, October 6, 2008

feel deeply honored to be with you today, and to participate in this important conference with the distinguished President and Vice President of Taiwan, and this audience of successful achievers. We have just heard a remarkable representation from Vice President Siew about Taiwans vision for overcoming the challenges presented by the global nancial strains, and for regaining Taiwans productivity-driven growth and competitiveness. There are tremendous opportunities for Taiwan, her people, and investors in the decade ahead as this vision is gradually realized and global economic conditions normalize. Taiwan is a very important trading partner of the United States. Hundreds of American companies have successfully invested here, directly or indirectly, over the years. Some of our companies have been here for decades, represented by people in this audience. Today, because I have been involved in the management of a number of past nancial crises while serving in the American Government and the International Monetary Fund, I have been asked by the conference organizers to say a few words about the latest global nancial crisis, the roots and causes of this crisis, the strategies in place to address the global nancial strains, the lessons learned, and the prospects ahead for the global economy.

roots of the present crisis go back to l997 and the Asian nancial crisis. When banks and markets collapsed throughout Asia in l997, the American government, decided to stimulate its own economy to help to address the deation in global net demand that was created by the implosion in Asia. The American central bank slashed interest rates, which gradually fuelled a liquiditydriven boom in technology investment and provided increased global net demand. This was the right decision, but by holding interest

Two months ago, the annual report of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basil, Switzerland, stated that the nancial crisis facing the globe was the most dangerous since the end of the second world war, and that we were rapidly approaching a tipping points in the crisis. As you know, the BIS is where central bankers meet privately to consider global nancial and economic problems. So, when this alarming report appeared, governments everywhere took immediate notice. The BIS report, however, was only the latest in a series of warnings that had been voiced in public and in private by increasingly alarmed ofcials, such as Governor Gramlich in the U.S. Federal Reserve. Some of these concerns appeared in a book I helped write while serving at CSIS, a public policy institute in Washington, D.C. (International Financial Architecture: G7, IMF , BIS, Debtors and Creditors - Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) It is important to understand that some of the
VSOTD.COM

3 Crisis Background

POLICY OF VITAL SPEECHES The publisher of Vital Speeches of the Day believes that it is indeed vital to the welfare of the nation that important, constructive addresses by recognized leaders in both the public and private sectors be permanently recorded and disseminatedboth to ensure that readers gain a sound knowledge of public questions and to provide models of excellence in contemporary oratory. These speeches represent the best thoughts of the best minds on current national and international issues in the fields of economics, politics, education, sociology, government, criminology, finance, business, taxation, health, law, labor, and more. It is the policy of the publisher to cover both sides of public questions. Furthermore, because Vital Speeches of the Day was founded on the belief that it is only in the unedited and unexpurgated speech that the view of the speaker is truly communicated to the reader, all speeches are printed in full. When it is necessary to condense a speech for reasons of unusual length or the use of extraneous matter, it is so stated. Speeches featured in Vital Speeches of the Day are selected solely on the merit of the speech and the speaker, and do not reflect the personal views or pre-established relationships of the publisher. Subscribers are urged to call the editors attention to any speeches that have impressed them as outstanding so that copies may be secured for review. Editor Tom Daly IV [email protected] (843) 881-8733 Creative Director Amy Wimmer Production Specialist Dean Shirley Marketing Director Jennifer Zuverink Product Manager Jenny Babich Product Specialist April Schroeder Product Specialist Tara Wise VP/Center for Professional Excellence Scott M. Accatino Telephone (888) 303-2373 Fax (602) 427-0374

Vital Speeches of the Day (ISSN 0042-742X) is published monthly by McMurry, McMurry Campus Center, 1010 E. Missouri Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85014. SUBSCRIPTIONS U.S., $75.00/year; Foreign, $95.00/year E-mail [email protected] Back issues, $8.00, plus postage. Microfilm and microfiche editions, $38.00 per volume, subscribers only. Vital Speeches is indexed in the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature. An annual index is printed each November and distributed to all subscribers. Cumulative Indicies available: Volumes 1-25 and Volumes 26-50, $75.00 each, plus postage. Volume Binders for Vital Speeches, $15.00 plus postage. Publisher Periodical postage paid at Phoenix, AZ and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to 1010 E. Missouri Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85014.

richard MccorMacK
rates too low for too long and providing too much credit at too low a cost, a dangerous bubble in equity markets was triggered. The bubble burst in 2001, erasing nearly 7 trillion dollars in equity values in the U.S. alone. By holding interest rates too low for too long, it turned a good idea into a bad idea. When the bubble burst, the leadership of the American central bank decided to create a smaller bubble, a housing bubble, to ll part of the gaping economic hole created by the collapse of the rst bubble and to help lift the country from a threatened recession. Again, that was probably the right decision, but again, by holding interest rates too low for too long, it turned a good idea into a very bad idea, and housing prices rose 130 percent between 200l and 2006. The Federal Reserve and other supervisory bodies, despite the concerns of individual ofcials, also failed to stop the dangerous practices that were developing in the mortgage markets, believing that the markets would police themselves. The problem was complicated by the global current accounts imbalances that gradually developed. These came partly as a consequence of U.S. consumer demand that was created in part by the soaring value of real estate. Consumers began borrowing large amounts of money from their home equity, and spending it, often recklessly. The country as a whole began to develop titanic and sustained current account decits. Eventually, this process produced the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the planet, as trillions of dollars of trade decits mounted for the U.S. It was clearly unsustainable, but the continuing market demand encouraged excessive investment in export industries all over the world. This resulted in gradually weakening prots from many of these industries through cut-throat competition among themselves. In some countries, huge trade surpluses began to appear, creating difculties in managing monetary policy, since the excess dollars had to be bought up by the central bank in local currency. This resulted in very low interest rates, excess capacity, bubbles in stock and real estate markets, and gradually increasing inationary pressures. Fuelled by titanic monetary stimulus, global economic growth began to explode upward, eventually reaching 5.2 percent on an annual basis. At this point, more than two years ago, some leading central bankers in Asia grew alarmed and began warning privately that the natural resource base to supply the global economy at a 5.2 percent growth pace did not exist. There wasnt enough oil, coal, copper, and other resources to sustain this growth without triggering shortages and ination. These voices urged squeezing liquidity to bring down global growth to 3.5 per cent, where gradually the global economy could accumulate the necessary quantities of

531
oil and other materials at a reasonable non-inationary price to keep the global growth sustainable. About this time, the IMF began warning that risk was not being priced into the cost of money. Bonds were being sold without regard to traditional risk premiums, even in countries with bad political and economic histories. Houses were being sold to people at prices they could not afford and were being nanced by mortgage companies that quickly passed on the risky mortgages and bonds to others through complicated derivative packages. These, in turn, were sold throughout the world to people and institutions happy to purchase such leveraged and protable investments. This was also the case for some banks that were not able to make much prot on traditional loans in an environment of very low interest rates. Thus, they were looking for other ways to improve their protability. Elaborate credit derivatives were deployed to deal with potential default risk. These insurance policies, which were purchased or issued by banks and other investors and nancial institutions, rose at an explosive pace to nearly 70 trillion dollars in notional value. Concerns began to mount in Central Banks about the stability of some of this insurance in a potentially chaotic future nancial environment. Crash efforts, led by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were mounted to bring order to this process. Some reforms were instituted. However, more and more nancial business was established on shorter and shorter credit terms, with investors believing that they would be able to disengage themselves if the nancial environment were to become dangerous. Nearly three years ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York warned of a potential future rush by nervous investors to the exit during a crisis, which, in turn, could produce a fatal shortage of market liquidity. Markets paid little attention to this warning, which was repeated several times by Mr. Geithner. All these conditions of easy money, lax supervision, and the complacency brought about by a multi-year period of ever-increasing wealth, prosperity, prots, leverage, and growth, produced the greatest credit boom and asset ination in history. Last August, Mr. Geithners concern about a rush by investors to the exit, suddenly materialized. Housing prices began falling and those holding the derivative paper based on housing mortgages panicked. Much of the global banking system simply froze, with nobody knowing who had the bad paper, who had the good paper, and who might go suddenly bankrupt; creditors were left holding the bag. Central banks backed by governments rushed into the credit vacuum, provided a safety net for imperiled nancial institutions with loans in unprecedented amounts to keep them aoat. These institutions included Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and a number of other critical
december 2008

532
pieces of the American mortgage and banking structure. Other banks in Europe were merged with the help of governments or nationalized. Such ad hoc measures were temporarily effective in stabilizing the nancial system until three weeks ago, when, after a frantic weekend in New Yorks Federal Reserve building, efforts to nd a solution to Lehman Brothers fell apart and a decision was made by the American Government not to rescue it from bankruptcy. The Lehman bankruptcy triggered a panic among surviving nancial institutions, and runs began on even very solid banks in many parts of the world. Money market funds, which were supposedly safe and conservatively managed and which provided more than three trillion dollars worth of credit, experienced withdrawals. Rumors, some true, some false, some malicious, added fuel to the global nancial crisis. Authorities all over the world realized that the nancial system itself was gravely imperiled and that major new steps were required. They could no longer rely on piecemeal efforts to address the liquidity problems of individual nancial institutions. Something much more massive and fundamental was required. This resulted in the rapid creation of a 700 billion dollar bailout fund proposal to address the uncertainty in the nancial system over the value of derivative products. But, because of the lack of condence among lawmakers in the Bush Administration and on Wall Street, the initial effort failed in Congress. However, Treasury was able to provide guarantees through the exchange stabilization fund it controls to insure money market depositors against loss. After a week of frantic negotiation and persuasion, the bailout bill in modied form was passed by a reluctant Congress. In the meantime, the American central bank supplied hundreds of billions of dollars of loans to other Central Banks worldwide to help provide liquidity. European and Asian leaders undertook their own measures to stabilize a number of their banks, while considering other broader measures. The question now is how the nancial crisis will evolve from this point onward. Because housing prices rose much faster than income levels in a number of countries, including the U.S., it is likely that housing prices will continue to decline in the year or two ahead. It is also clear that consumer credit has tightened considerably. The fear generated by President Bushs necessary speeches to the nation warning that the economy itself was in peril, will not help consumer sentiment in the months ahead. Commodity prices will fall as demand falls. There will be a general unwinding of asset ination, and this will impact some emerging markets. Thus, there is likely to be a slowdown in global
VSOTD.COM 3 Future Prospects

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

growth around the world in the year or two ahead. Markets of all kinds will have to clear. This is a recognized part of the business cycle. As this market correction unfolds, it is important for people and investors to keep a number of considerations in mind. During the last fty years, there has been a steady rise in living standards around the world. This has been driven by vast improvements in the access of billions of people to education, capital, markets, and technology. The short word for this is globalization. This process has been driven by productivity, and it is not going to end. It has produced too much good for too many people for it to be allowed to end. During this period, we have had a number of corrections, but they have all proved temporary, some very short indeed. But the long wave of gradually increasing global prosperity is the really important consideration as we contemplate our future and that of our children. The challenge for global leaders now is to do what is necessary to make sure that the necessary market correction is as orderly as possible. That will involve a number of steps. 1) Governments must and will continue measures to stabilize the nancial system. They are aware that Austrias Creditanstalt banking collapse in the l930s triggered a domino-like process involving other banks around the world. Governments cannot and will not risk repeating that. So, the rst priority must be to stabilize banks and nancial institutions. There will continue to be headline events that will require attention by authorities. Whatever it may cost, rm ofcial stabilizing action is cheap by comparison to the chaotic alternatives. Moral hazard issues can be addressed later, in part, by enhanced supervision of banks and, in part, by subsequently modifying general banking deposit guarantees when they are no longer required to provide condence. 2) The second thing Governments must do is to make the nancial system safer. That means less leverage, more transparency and standardization in derivative products, larger capital bases, and a more effective supervisory process. This is widely understood. It is important that the details of this process be carefully worked out so we dont kill the vitality of the nancial system. This is what happened in the l930s, when, after the crash, banks became so conservative in their lending that nobody was able to borrow money unless they didnt need it. This prevented growth and innovation and prolonged the depression. We dont want to cripple the nancial system while trying to save it. 3) Central Banks, in my view, must never again be blind to the dangers of asset inations, looking only at core ination, however they may dene it. Ination

richard MccorMacK
targeting that ignores asset inations will cause us to repeat the dotcom, housing, and commodity asset bubbles that are an underlying cause of much of our present misery. By the same token, we also know that at some point ination pressures could turn into even more dangerous deation pressures. One of the most critical tasks of central banks is to not wait so long to change policies that deation or ination has deeply imbedded itself in the economy. 4) We must make sure that the global trading system remains global. In recent years, energies by governments have been focused on strengthening and expanding regional trading blocks, such as the EU, NAFTA, the FTA, and various Asian counterparts. These open trade opportunities for those inside the new blocs. But, are these regional blocs a good long-term substitute for a more global trading system? In my view, we must be alert to opportunities to fold regional trading blocks into a global framework through the WTO in the decades ahead. I remember Prime Minister Thatcher at the Houston G-7 Economic Summit of 1990 warning the other leaders that regional trading blocs could eventually lead to regional political blocs. These could, in turn, lead to military blocs and sow the seeds of future conicts generations from now. Governments also need to consider the dilemmas posed by export-led economies. If just a small part of the global economy is driven by export-led growth, as was the case in the last century, it is a sustainable process. However, if half the global economy is depending excessively on export-led growth, it can lead to global imbalances, unstable currencies, competitive devaluations, ugly domestic political problems, and eventually protectionism. These problems need to be avoided. Economic strategies for more domestic-led demand, while possibly more difcult to achieve than strategies for export-led growth, are more sustainable and better in the long-term. I was pleased to see this concept deeply imbedded in President Mas growth plan. I look forward to seeing his infrastructure projects materialize for the benet of his nation. I am sure others will follow his path, something that is needed at this stage in the global economy. 5) The inevitable temporary unemployment that will grow out of the consumer recession, asset deation, and credit crisis, could also lead to political radicalism in some parts of the world. This is what happened in the l930s. All of us need to encourage responsibility in our political processes by active personal involvement, support of good people in politics, and by not expecting instant miracles from political leadership when facing difcult problems.

533
6) We need to retain our optimism as we look to the future. And we have every reason for optimism. We know that there is such a thing as the business cycle and we know that, at some point in a year or two, business cycles turn back up. The world has learned an immense amount about how to manage economic crises since the 1930s, when bad monetary policies not only caused the preceding boom, but also caused the recession to turn into a long and painful depression by excessive monetary conservatism. This mistake will not be repeated. It is already clear that Central Banks are playing a highly constructive role in the management of the present crisis, with each nation carefully tailoring its policies to evolving local conditions. At some point, a coordinated monetary policy adjustment is likely, to avoid unnecessary currency instabilities. 7) We also know that technology produces new opportunities and whole new business models every decade. Who would have imagined that the giant Microsoft would be such a powerful economic driver when we were concerned about the problems of Americas rust belt in the l980s? Nanotechnologies, revolutionary new approaches to pollution abatement, water shortage mitigations, public health improvements, and thousands of other developments pour out of laboratories, businesses, universities, and ordinary basements from innovative individuals and groups all over the world. The inclusion of hundreds of millions of new people in the pool of the educated that we are now seeing worldwide will add to the sum of human inventions and to human prosperity and welfare. We cannot predict exactly what these will be. We just know that they happen every decade in response to challenges and opportunities. And we know they will not stop. You in this room are among the drivers of the global economy. Each of you in your own way is contributing to this incredible process by providing jobs, capital, and new ideas. Keep up the good work. And keep your faith in the future. Remember the slogan of Warren Buffett, Americas most famous and most successful long-term investor. He is now pouring billions of dollars from the funds he controls into temporarily distressed assets. He is fond of saying, When others are greedy, I become fearful. When others are fearful, I become greedy. Good advice from a very wise and successful investor. Finally, President Mas new administration has outlined a promising new development strategy for Taiwan. As it is implemented, it will create new investment opportunities for many of the people in this room. It is up to us to seize these opportunities. Thank you.

december 2008

534

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

The Constitution
ITS FATE DEPENDS ON CIVIC LEADERS
Address by RICHARD J. HARDY, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Western Illinois University Delivered to John Hallwas Liberal Arts Lecture at Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois, September 25, 2008

any years ago, a young sports reporter interviewed legendary basketball coach John Wooden. The reporter asked Coach Wooden to identify his single greatest accomplishment. Anticipating that Coach Wooden might mention his ten NCAA basketball championships at UCLA, or being the rst person inducted into college basketballs Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach, or receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or any number of notable accolades, the reporter was surprised by Coach Woodens immediate retort. As quick as a hiccup, Coach Wooden blurted, I am most proud of the fact I am rst, foremost, and always a teacher. When the puzzled reporter asked, Why would you say that, Coach?, John Wooden immediately red back: Young man, you ask me why I teach? Where else could you nd such splendid company? That is exactly how I feel tonight. I too am most proud of the fact that I am a teachera teacher at my beloved alma mater, Western Illinois University. And just look aroundwhere else could I nd such splendid company? It doesnt get any better than this! President Goldfarb, Provost Thomas, Associate Provost Dallinger, Members of the Board of Trustees, Dean Levi, Dr. and Mrs. Hallwas, Dr. Simmons, Distinguished members of the Hallwas Lecture Committee, fellow faculty, staff, alums and, most importantly, the great students at Western Illinois Universitygood evening and thanks for attending the 2008 Hallwas Lecture. It is a distinct honor to have my name associated with the great John Hallwas, a true Renaissance mana gifted teacher, scholar, raconteur, civic leader, historian, and the most prolic writer our university has ever produced. I am equally privileged to have my name associated with the previous Hallwas LecturersJohn Hallwas (2003), Charles Helm (2004), Karen Mann (2005), Tracy Knight (2006) and Alvin Goldfarb (2007). They have set our academic bar very high. Thank you for the wonderful introduction and kind words. It makes me feel more important than I really am. In actuality, nobody accomplishes anything signicant without a support cast. First and foremost, I want to recognize and thank my dear wife, Linda. Forty years ago, we started our married life together in a two-room apartment in East Village, married student housing, right here on this campus. She alone knows the nancial struggles and the great sacrices we made to get me through college. Without her unwavering support, great

typing skills, and encouragement, I would not be here today. Thank you, Linda. Second, I am grateful to Western Illinois University and the myriad opportunities it has provided and continues to provide me. I was blessed to have some truly outstanding professors, educators who challenged and inspired me in countless ways. And I am equally blessed to work with such ne administrators, colleagues, alums and outstanding students. Who could have imagined that the frightened, awestruck teenager who rst walked through Sherman Hall so many decades agothat rst-generation college student who wondered if he could pay for his education, let alone compete in the classroomwho had never seen a real-life Ph.D. and who truly thought that professors wore mortarboards to classwould be standing here today, delivering the Hallwas Lecture on the 50th anniversary of our college. Miracles do happen. Thank you, Western! A great deal of thought went into selecting the topic of tonights lectureThe ConstitutionIts Fate Depends On Civic Leaders. There are many interrelated factors that drew me to this particular title and topic. First, the subject of constitutional law has long intrigued me. The seeds of this fascination were sewn several decades ago by several ne political science professors at WesternDon Marshall, Charles Leonard, and David Frier; and over the years I have continued to study the Constitution and develop a variety of public law courses. Second, the topic comports nicely with our Constitution Day celebration. As you may know, in 2005 U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia secured passage of a law that requires all educational institutions receiving federal funding to honor our Constitution annually on or near its birthday, September 17. This lecture, plus copies of the U.S. Constitution ancillary materials, are offered in the spirit of that law. Third, I sought a topic that would highlight the importance of a liberal arts educationthe heart of any great university. As will be noted shortly, the Framers of the Constitution were well grounded in the liberal arts, and the masterpiece that they created reects the wisdom of the classics. Finally, the Constitution is solid rock upon which our Republic is built. We Americans are a diverse group of people; we come in many packages. Among our body politic are people of virtually every nationality, ethnicity, religion and
3 Purpose

VSOTD.COM

richard J. hardy
culture. While we often have profound disagreements over politics, religion, art, music and lifestyles, we nevertheless have at least one thing in commonThe Constitution of the United States. It is, I believe, the proverbial glue that holds us together as a nation. Tonight, let us briey turn attention to the Founders, the Constitutional Convention, and, of course, the Constitution. Let us highlight some of the Constitutions most striking features, demonstrate its exibility, examine how it has changed, and speculate about its future. And, like everything else in America, you are to form your own opinions on the topic. Our Constitution is now 219 years old. It is the oldest, written, nation-state constitution in operation today. The document is remarkably parsimonious. It contains a Preamble, a short introduction, exclaiming its lofty purpose (We, the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America). Ironically, the Preamble has never been used as the basis for any Supreme Court ruling. The document next contains seven Articles, or content subdivisions, and just 27 Amendments or formal alterations (the rst ten of which came with the Bill of Rights and just 17 since 1791). Excluding the Founders signatures, the entire document, including amendments, contains 7,606 words. Had you read todays Chicago Tribunes sports section, you would have read more words than are contained in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, despite its longevity and brevity, our Constitution remains a durable, functioning framework upon which our government is built. In 1787, Framers gathered in Philadelphias Independence Hall ostensibly for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, created in 1781, represented the states weak attempt to establish a national government. The Articles problems were manifold. The 13 states retained their own sovereignty. Each state could coin its own money, negotiate treaties, impose restrictions on trade, and favor its own citizens. The national government had no executive branch, the judicial branchs jurisdiction was limited to prize and piracy cases, and the legislative branch was powerless to collect taxesthus we had no effective army or navy to protect the people and our economic interests. Given the glaring weaknesses of the Articles, it is easy to see that the Delegates quickly dismissed the Articles and moved to craft a new national government. Each of the states, save Rhode Island, sent delegates to the convention. Although some 73 delegates were named, only 55 ever attended the convention, and just 39 signed the completed document. Delegates ranged in age from 26 (Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey) to 81
3 Overview of the Constitution

535
(the venerable Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania), with an average of 43 years. Most of the 55 delegates had considerable political experience. Eight were signers of the Declaration of Independence, 44 served in the Continental Congress, six had served as state governors, and most had served in their respective state legislatures. Naturally, much attention has been given to the delegates race, religion and economic status. All were white males. There were 54 Protestants and one Roman Catholic. Thirty-two of the 55 delegates were attorneys, eight were merchants, three were medical doctors, two were college presidents, about two dozen owned slaves, and most were relatively quite wealthy. Indeed, arguably the richest delegate was the presiding ofcer, George Washington. Viewing the Founders through todays lenses, it is quite understandable why many Americans xate on the demographic characteristics of the Founders and why some critics label them exclusionary elitists. Whether or not our Founders were truly representatives of the people or had the willingness to put the public interest above private interests has long been the subject of debate, witness the provocative writings of Charles A. Beard (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 1913), Robert E. Brown (Charles A. Beard and the Constitution, 1956), or Forrest McDonald (We the People, 1976). However, one aspect of our Framers that is often overlooked is their solid grounding in the liberal arts. When we speak of liberal arts, we are referring to a body of knowledge that pertains to general cultural concerns, such as history, philosophy and language, as opposed to technical training or learning a trade. As a whole, the delegates were highly educated. Nearly all began their education in the home, learning to read Biblical passages. Most received formal schooling or private tutoring in Latin or Greek, and many attended college. Indeed, nearly 30 of the 55 delegates were college graduates. There were some notable exceptions, such as George Washington who only had about ve years of formal schooling, but he too valued books and was familiar with some of the classics. The classical education of the period emphasized seven liberal artsknown as the trivium and the quadrivium. The trivium (Latin, meaning the place where three roads meet), or the lower division of the liberal arts, consisted of grammar, logic and rhetoric. The quadrivium (Latin, meaning where four roads join), was the higher division of the liberal arts, which included arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. There is clear evidence that most of our early leaders were avid readers. Recall Jeffersons later quip, I cannot live without books (1815). Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and other contemporaries frequently
december 2008 3 Inuence of Liberal Arts

536
quoted the classics in their political debates and personal correspondence. This too was the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, when intellectuals throughout Western culture strove to understand human nature and advance seemingly radical social and political reforms. The Founders were quite familiar with English philosopher Francis Bacon and his belief in scientic discovery. According to Bacon, it was possible to observe nature, discover immutable laws, engage human reason, and apply it to society. While the Founders appeared intellectually eclectic, there were several common threads that profoundly inuenced their thinking and actions. They were: 1) Classical Republicanism, 2) Natural Rights Philosophy, and 3) Judeo-Christian Tenants. The Founders were quite familiar with ancient Greek and Roman culture and history. Among the early Greek philosophers, historians and orators they admired included Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Plutarch, Demosthenes, Homer and Polybius. The Founders were particularly intrigued with the Roman Republic (circa 509 to 27 B.C.) and the chronicles of Cicero, Virgil, Horace and Justinian. Most importantly, the Founders were taken by the Greek and Roman philosophy that would later be termed classical republicanism. Under classical republicanism, the political culture places public interest above private interest, and promotes the common good through moral education and the civic virtue of its citizens. Civic virtue encompassed the essential qualities of fairness, honesty, integrity, compassion, generosity, courage, responsibility, accountability, moderation and self-control. Examples of this classical republican inuence upon our early American leaders are legion. The authors of the Anti-Federalists Papers (those who opposed the ratication of the U.S. Constitution) published under the pseudonyms of Roman heroes, such as Cato (George Clinton-NY), Brutus (Robert Yates-NY) and Centinel (Samuel Bryan-PA). Likewise, The Federalist Papers (85 essays authored by Alexander Hamilton-NY, James Madison-VA and John Jay-NY supporting the ratication of the Constitution) were anonymously penned under the name Publius (the sage Roman consul, known as the Friend of the People, who instituted the popular vote and exempted the poor from taxes). Perhaps the most revered Roman consul was Cincinnatus, the leader who placed public service ahead of personal gain and voluntarily relinquished power to return to his farm. George Washington, upon stepping down as President, was often referred to as Americas Cincinnatus.
3 Natural Rights Philosophy 3 Classical Republicanism

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

inuenced by the Natural Rights philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. The recurring theme among these philosophers was the belief that humans once lived in a state of nature where they had complete freedom. But life in this state of nature was uncertain and chaotic at best. As Hobbes pessimistically theorized, life in the state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. According to these theorists, there was nothing in the state of nature to protect their lives or their natural rights to life, property or liberty. To live, let alone progress, the people entered into a compact with the sovereign, but could never relinquish certain natural rights. For Hobbes, the fundamental right was the right to life. For Locke, natural rights included the rights to worship, voice their concerns to government, and own property. And for Rousseau, when humans entered into the social compact with the sovereign, they agreed to give up complete unbridled freedoms in exchange for civil libertiesliberties within the law. This natural rights philosophy was the cornerstone for The Declaration of Independence in 1776. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would likely be charged with plagiarism, because it was painfully obvious that he had borrowed from the natural rights theorists, especially John Locke. When Jefferson states, Governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Lockes inuence was apparent. Similarly, when Jefferson writes about certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Note how Jefferson substituted Lockes notion of property for Pursuit of Happiness, suggesting to critics that Jefferson did not want common people to get the idea they may be entitled to the Founders property). We will see how the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution would substitute this latter phrase, mandating No person shall be denied the right to life, liberty and property without due process. The 9th Amendment to the Constitution also reveals this natural rights inuence, The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Finally, the Founders were inuenced by JudeoChristian teachings. As noted, many of the Founders had learned to read from Biblical scripture. Moreover, many colonial colleges required students to translate passages of the Bible into Greek and Latin as a condition of admission. Recall the reference to the Deity in the Declaration of Independence: they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights The Framers often quoted the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and other passages that emphasized love, charity and forgiveness. Benjamin Franklin spoke of Providence when he noted, God
3 Judeo-Christian Teachings

It is plainly evident the Founders were keenly

VSOTD.COM

richard J. hardy
governs the affairs of men. The inscription on the Liberty Bell, Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land, stems from the book of Leviticus. Hence, there is clear indication of the Framers belief in a higher power. In sum, the Framers of the Constitutional Convention were well grounded in the liberal arts. They were generally well read. They respected history, and drew heavily upon philosophy and religion. This is readily apparent when one examines the content of the Constitution. The enormity of the task facing the Framers in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 is perhaps best encapsulated by James Madison in the Federalist #51 (February 6, 1788), In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the chief difculty lies in this: You must rst enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself. This is the question that has long perplexed the architects of government and the lovers of liberty alike. How do we create a government strong enough to govern the people, but not so strong that it abridges our basic freedoms? How was this to be accomplished? The Framers were practical men who borrowed extensively from a variety of sources. It is impossible in this forum to detail the roots of every provision in the Constitution. Sufce it to say, the document is highly eclectic. One can nd signicant trace elements of the Magna Carta (1215), The British Petition of Rights (1628), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (1786), early state constitutions, and the aforementioned philosophers. A few years back (2001), Justice Antonin Scalia was a guest in one of my constitutional law classes at the University of Missouri. He began by asking the students to identify what they considered to be the most important provision in the Constitution. Most students identied the First Amendment and the freedom of expression; some identied the 6th Amendments right to council, others the 4th Amendments protection against unreasonable search and seizures, a few cited the 2nd Amendment, and still others concentrated on the 14th Amendments due process and equal protection clauses. Justice Scalia acknowledged the importance of each, but noted that many world constitutions, even those of totalitarian regimes, contain such provisions on paper. It was Justice Scalias considered opinion that the most important provisions of our Constitution are those providing for separation of powers and checks and balances. These concepts, of course, were the brainchild of French philosopher Montesquieu. In his classic work, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu suggested a mixed constitution with built in safeguards
3 Basic Features of the Constitution

537
that would impede any one group from gaining total control of the polity. As Madison writes in Federalist #51, Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The embracement of this philosophy in our Constitution is clearly evident. Article I provides, All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress. Article II begins, The Executive Powers shall be vested in a President of the United State And, Article III stipulates, The Judicial Power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish. Under this plan, each branch is responsible to a different constituency, serves a different term, and possesses different legal weapons with which to challenge the other. It is Scalias contention that without these vital elements all other freedoms would be meaningless. Just consider a few of the changes that have taken place since our Constitution took effect in 1789. Our nations capitol was New York City. The largest city was Philadelphia with about 40,000 people (the population of Quincy, Illinois, today) and the entire U.S. population was roughly 3.9 million (about one-third the current population of Illinois). There were just 13 states, and each had nearly complete freedom to control anything within its borders. People of color were not citizens; indeed, most were considered property. Children had few rights, women could not vote, and even white males had to be 21 and own property to vote. There were no political parties. There was no Capitol Building, no White House, and no Supreme Court Building (indeed it would not be until 1935 that the High Court had its rst, permanent home). Senators were selected by their respective state legislatures. Serving in Congress in the early days of our Republic was a great personal sacrice, and most members served no more than one or two terms. President Washingtons initial administration consisted of just one, part-time personhis nephew, Bushrod, whom he paid him out of his own pocket. Of necessity, President Washingtons foreign policy was that of isolation as he sought to avoid entangling alliances. The rst federal budget was about $1 million. The Supreme Court was created with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The rst Supreme Court consisted of six members, who rode circuit twice a year, and didnt render a case for the rst three years. It took weeks to travel to and from the nations capitol. Believe it or not, there were no Wal-Marts, no airplanes, no computers, no cell phones, no emails, no blackberries. You get the idea. Today, there are 50 states, and the U.S. population is an estimated 310 million. Washington, DC, has served as our nations capital since 1800. The U.S. federal government budget is now $3.1 trillion, and our nation in going in debt about $1.9 billion per day! The national
december 2008 3 ChangesThen and Now

538
government through the commerce clause, emergency powers, and grants-in-aid now regulates many areas that were once considered the exclusive preserve of the states. One would be hard pressed to nd a single policy area (education, highways, health care, welfare, public safety, etc.) that the federal government does not regulate. Indeed, it could be argued that Illinois is no longer the state of Illinois, but a department of the federal government! The White House has long been the symbol of the presidency. The Presidents staff has now grown to about 450, excluding the residence employees, such as chefs, custodians, gardeners, and painters. And the U.S. government has a presence in every part of the globe. Political parties have long dominated the nomination and election process. Senators have been popularly elected for nearly a century. And now if you win a seat in Congress, due to incumbency advantage and partisan gerrymandering, its yours to keep! There was more turnover in the Supreme Soviet than in the U.S. Congress. Minorities and women are now winning signicant electoral victories at all levels of government and are now a vital part of the political landscape. And now in 2008, American stands poised to elect an African American or a woman to the highest ofces of our nation! Methods of Constitutional Change Our Constitution has changed in myriad ways, both formally and informally. The Framers recognized that the Constitution would require periodic alterations, so they included an amending article, Article V. This article is based on the federal principle; it requires the consent of both the national and state governments to amend the Constitution. There are two ways to propose and two ways to ratify amendments. They can be proposed by two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or by a Constitutional Convention called for by 2/3s of the state legislatures (today, 34 states). I will have more to offer regarding the convention method in just a moment. The ink had barely dried on the Constitution in 1787, when anonymous articles began to appear in newspapers questioning the efcacy and limits of the new government. Among the greatest concerns of these Antifederalists was the Supremacy clause (Art. 6, Sec. 2), the role of the Supreme Court, and most especially the lack of a Bill of Rights. The Founders generally thought there were sufcient protections built into the Constitution, especially in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 (e.g., proscriptions on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder). But this did not satisfy the Anti-federalists. Indeed, George Mason of Virginia quipped, I would rather cut off my right arm than to sign this document as it presently exists. Fearing that the Constitution would not be
VSOTD.COM 3 Through Formal Amendments

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

ratied, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights. When the very rst Congress met in New York in March of 1789, the Federalists immediately announced plans to accept amendments. Just think, this may be the rst time, and the only time, in recorded history where Congress ever kept a promise. Approximately, 125 amendments were submitted, many overlapped and were poorly worded (there were many ought nots in the verbiage). Mason and Madison took the lead in sifting and winnowing through the proposals. Ultimately, Congress approved twelve amendments, and sent them to the states for ratication. The states ratied ten, which became known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, the original rst two amendments did not pass. The original rst amendment did not pass. It would have established one member of Congress for every 30,000 persons. Had that passed, we would have just over 10,000 members of Congress! That would be like herding cats! And the original second amendment is now the 27th Amendment, ratied in 1992, 203 years after it was originally proposed. The Bill of Rights, the rst ten amendments, was ratied in 1791. But there are still at least two common misperceptions about these amendments. First, the Bill of Rights places restrictions on government, not individuals. For example, it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a private employer to sanction an employee for an untoward remark made on the job. Indeed, among all 27 constitutional amendments, there is only one that restricts individual actionthe 13th Amendment. Second, only a portion of the Bill of Rights today extends protections against state actions, as opposed to federal governmental actions. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually expanded the meaning of the 14th Amendments due process clause to selectively absorb or incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights so that they extend protection against both levels of government but only on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis. Today, only three amendments of the Bill of Rights, 1st, 4th and 6th, protect us against state actions. Two amendments have been partially incorporated5th and 8th. The remaining ve amendments2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10thonly apply to the federal government. Three Amendments have been added to overcome controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are: 11th Amendment (1795) to overcome Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 14th Amendment (1868) to reverse Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), 16th Amendment (1913) to circumvent Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company (1895). Three Amendments were added to reect changing social values. They were the 13th (1865), striking slavery and involuntary servitude; the 18th (1919), calling for prohibition; and the 21st (1933), which repealed the 18th Amendment.

richard J. hardy
Four Amendments have altered the method of selecting the President: the 12th (1804), requiring electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President; 20th (1933) or lame duck amendment, telescoping the period between the election and convening of government; 22nd (1951), term limits for the President; and 25th (1967) establishing procedures for dealing with presidential disability and vacancies. And there have been six amendments that have expanded the franchise. It is painfully obvious that our suffrage was quite limited in the early days of our Republic. The Constitution leaves the question of voter qualications up to the states, and the states generally limited voting to white, male property owners over 21 years of age. But through the amendment process, we have added the 15th (1870), extending suffrage to men of color; 17th (1913), calling for the popular election of U.S. Senators; 19th (1920); granting the franchise to women; 23rd (1961), allowing the residents of Washington, DC, three electoral votes; 24th (1964), banning poll taxes in federal elections; and 26th (1971), allowing those over 18 years old the right to vote. But how do you think those changes occurred? Do you think that a group of men sat there in Congress and said, We think its a good idea if we were elected by the people rather than being hand picked by our good old boy network back home in the state legislatures? Maybe they said: Heres a good idea, lets give people of color the right to vote. Perchance they said, Wouldnt it be great if we gave women the right vote? Or perhaps they said, We really need to give teenagers the right to vote. If you believe that, you would believe that a pencil only has one end. It took a very well organized progressive movement, with great civic leaders, to change the way we elect U.S. Senators. It took a Civil War to secure the 15th Amendment, plus an additional hundred years of struggle and uncommon civic leadership to secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to enable people of color the right to vote. And it took social protest and a peace movement on college campuses to secure 18 year-olds the right to vote. Nobody said it was easy. But it is possible if you have the right civic leadersleaders, who possess great passion, are driven by principles, who understand the art of politics, and are willing to make great sacrices to achieve great things. Of course, there are lots of people with seemingly great ideas who have attempted to create constitutional amendments. There have been over 11,000 constitutional amendments proposed over the years, and over half have been since 1970. You can nd a few of those proposals listed in the handout. Some might seem a bit odd, such as amendments to outlaw dueling, renaming our country to The United States of the World, or selecting Presidents by lot from a list of retiring U.S. Senatorsnow that might

539
be a way to enforce term limits! Other proposals may strike a harmonious chord, such as the amendments to limit congressional terms, restrict campaign contributions or eliminate my alma mater, the Electoral College. Did you know that there have been over 500 proposed amendments to change or eliminate the Electoral College? Recent polls suggest that over 70 percent of Americans favor the popular election of the President. As just noted, Article V also allows us to amend the Constitution through a constitutional convention when petitioned to do so by two-thirds of the state legislatures (now 34). Thus far, all of our amendments have been proposed initially by state legislatures; but there have been more than 300 attempts to call for another convention, but on only two occasions have we come close to securing the necessary two-thirds requirement. Led by U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (RIL) we came within two states of calling a constitutional convention in the late 1960s in reaction to Reynolds v. Sims (1964), a Supreme Court decision that ordered the upper houses of state legislatures to redraw their districts to comport with the one person, one vote principle. And the most recent was in the 1990s when we fell just two states short of petitioning Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of establishing an amendment to require a balanced federal budget. Among the most thoughtful suggestions to amend the U.S. Constitution have been offered by Dr. Larry Sabato, distinguished professor of political science at the University of Virginia. I have summarized his 23 suggestions for amending the Constitution in the handout. Among other things, he seeks to impose term limits on members of Congress; enlarge the size of House, Senate and Supreme Court; ban wealthy people from nancing their own campaigns; and require a balanced federal budget. But to accomplish any of these, he is proposing another constitutional convention. Let us consider this prospect for a moment. The Framers did not provide us with a great deal of detail with respect to the notion of a constitution convention. Here are some paramount questions. How will delegates be selectedby state legislatures, by Congress, by the voters? How many delegates will each state be entitled to haveequal numbers or members equal to the number of Senators and Representatives each state has in Congress? Who will preside over this new constitutional conventiona present leader of Congress, a state governor, a former President, the Chief Justice? Who will be the next George Washington? Should we require bipartisan representation? How are votes to be castapportioned by the states or shall each state get just one vote, as it was in the 1787 convention? Would it be possible to maintain secrecy like the original
december 2008 3 Through Constitutional Convention

540
convention or would the media demand embedded reporters? What would prevent a runaway convention; recall the purpose of our very rst Convention was the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. And, would it be possible to craft a workable document that would satisfy the diverse interests in our American society? And even if a new constitutional convention could reach agreement, the proposed amendments or new constitution would have to be ratied by threefourths or 38 states today. Which current provisions of the Constitution would emerge undisturbedthe Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the 2nd Amendment, the Takings Clause, the Supremacy Clause? Perhaps F . Lee Bailey was correct when he quipped that the Bill of Rights would not even get out of a Congressional Committee today. Our Constitution also has been altered through custom and usage. Here are just a few examples. Congress has developed senatorial courtesy, the unwritten rule that requires the President to seek prior approval from the U.S. Senator(s) of his party before making an appointment from that state. Most Congress members now engage in the practice of earmarking funds for pet projects, often without full hearings or complete public scrutiny. Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to testify before hearings, a power that historically belonged only to the judicial branch. Beginning with George Washington, Presidents have withheld sensitive information from Congress in the name of separation of powers. The Supreme Court recognizes this practice, known as executive privilege, as constitutional for national security but not criminal activities (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). The Supreme Court also recognizes the Presidents authority to remove the people whom he appoints, albeit that power is not specied in the Constitution (see, Myers v. U.S., 1926). Likewise, the High Court has legitimated the Presidents power to negotiate executive agreements with foreign states without senatorial approvaland these agreements have the same constitutional status as a treaty (see, U.S. v. Belmont, 1937; U.S. v. Pink, 1942). The power to declare war is conferred upon Congress in Article I, but for all practical purposes this power seems to have been transferred to the President. Indeed, Barry Goldwater once quipped, The United States has been in only ve declared wars out of the more than 150 in which we have fought. And, perhaps most importantly, the United State Supreme Court has claimed the power of judicial reviewthe authority to declare acts of Congress, the President or the actions of state or local governments unconstitutional. Let us turn our attention to the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution.
VSOTD.COM 3 Through Custom and Usage

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

3 Through Supreme Court Rulings

Judicial review is, for all intents and purposes, an American invention. While the seeds of judicial review could be found in British legal history (e.g., Lord Coke in Bonhams Case, 1610), the American colonial experience (e.g., James Otis in Lechmeres Case, 1761) or early appellate court decisions (e.g., William Patterson in Van Hornes Lessee v. Dorrance, 1795), the logical place to begin is the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) when Chief Justice John Marshall declared the Constitution to be a fundamental document, superior to any congressional enactment, and any law enacted which runs contrary to the Constitution should be null and void. Up to that point, no government of the world had ever permitted such action. The role of the courts was always thought to be to interpret the law, not to reject it. The act of interpretation is thought to be a judicial act. It is up to the legislature to revise the law to comport with the fundamental law; it was not the role of the judicial branch to order legislative actions or nullify the law. Thus, the act of declaring something unconstitutional is thought to be a political act. The U.S. Supreme Court is among the most powerful political bodies in the world. Its rulings not only interpret the Constitution, but they shape its meaning and direction. It is understandable why many observers believe the Supreme Court is nothing more than a perpetual constitutional convention. The Supreme Courts power is best understood by the Allegory of the Skull. There was a primitive tribe that resided on an isolated island in the Southern Pacic. The people of this primitive tribe had never been exposed to the ways of the modern world. They wore loincloths, lived in grass huts, ate coconuts, speared sh, and had never seen a gun, an airplane or a telephone. When the people had a problem, the tribal elders would hike up to the sacred cave in the side of the mountain, where they would consult the skull of their founder. After several hours of incantations and gyrations around the skull, the elders would emerge from the cave and rejoin the tribe to announce the decision of the skull. Is this really any different than the U.S. Supreme Court? Nearly every Friday or Thursday, when Court is in session, our nine appointed Supreme Court Justice meet in conference to decide cases. The meeting is held in complete secrecy as they gather around a large wooden table. And on the center of that table is a copy of the Constitution. Here the justices are called upon to decide cases our Framers could never have envisionedcases relating to wiretapping, automobile searches, afrmative action, campaign nance reform. Should enemy aliens be afforded the same rights as American citizens? Can Washington, DC, outlaw guns within its jurisdiction? Can a private club restrict membership to men, or women? Can campus clubs on

richard J. hardy
public universities use activity fees to promote religion? Does lethal injection constitute cruel or unusual punishment? Does a pregnant woman driving alone constitute a car pool? And whenever the decision is reached, members of the Washington press corps, many of whom are attorneys, will scramble to promulgate the Courts ruling. Headlines might read, The Constitution Prohibits this or that Says the High Court, or The Supreme Court Determines Police Procedures Violate the Constitution. Sound familiar? But the reality is, none of those things are written in the Constitution or on the skull in the cave. Perhaps it all comes down to what Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, The Constitution is what a majority of the justices say it is. The ongoing polemics over the proper role of the Supreme Court can be traced to the Anti-Federalists and Federalists debate over the ratication of the Constitution. In the Anti-Federalists #78 and #79 (March 1788), Brutus (generally thought to be Robert Yates, NY) argued against placing such immense power in the hands of judges with lifetime appointments. He feared the Court would run roughshod over the states, particularly under the aegis of the supremacy clause (Article I, Section 2). In Federalist #78 (June 1788), Publius (Alexander Hamilton, NY) responded by noting the judicial branch is intended to be the weakest branch of the national government. But he quickly asserted that a Supreme Court was necessary to check the unauthorized actions of the legislative and executive branches and preserve the peoples rights vested in the Constitution. Today, there are many who believe the Constitution is a living document which affords Supreme Court justices great leeway in interpreting the law to meet the needs of an ever-changing society. These judicial activists see the Court as the vanguard to protect civil liberties and minority rights. Others believe Supreme Court justices should merely interpret the words of the Constitution and refrain from creating new rights and liberties, such as privacy rights or group rights. From the judicial restraint perspective, any signicant alteration of the Constitution should redound from a majority of the people through their elected representatives. Whatever side you take on this debate, this much is clearour Constitution is a great document that affects nearly every aspect of our lives today. With that backdrop, now let us turn to the central question of this lecture: Will our Constitution last? The answer, of course, depends on many factors. There are many reasons to believe our Constitution will stand the test of time, and equally compelling reasons why it may not meet the challenges ahead. Let us briey examine some reasons to be optimistic and some reasons to be guarded.
3 Will Our Constitution Last? 3 Reasons for Optimism

541

There are many reasons to be optimistic about our Constitutions future. First and foremost, consider its longevity. Think of how many nation-state constitutions have come and gone since 1789. The second oldest written constitution still in operation is that of Norway, which dates to 1814, some 25 years our junior. There are approximately 190 member states in the United Nations today, and roughly 120 of those have constitutions written since 1970. France has undergone ten constitutions5 republics, 2 dictatorships, 2 empires, and one monarchy. And El Salvador has experimented with approximately 36 constitutions over its existence. Second, our Constitution has survived great economic crises. It managed to survive the economic calamity in the inchoate stages of our Republic when we had no national banking system. The Constitution has endured recessions, panics and even the Great Depression of the 1930swhen nearly a quarter of our population was unemployed, hundreds of banks closed their doors, and thousands of businesses led bankruptcy. Third, the Constitution has endured great electoral challenges. It survived the presidential election of 1800, when it took the House of Representatives 36 ballots to make Thomas Jefferson the President over Aaron Burr. The Constitution has weathered four presidential elections where the candidate who won the most popular votes lost the election. They were the elections of 1824 (John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson), 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland), and, how can anybody forget 2000 (George W. Bush over Al Gore)! The outcome of the 2000 election, of course, was ultimately determined by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000). I nd it a bit ironic that those who subscribe to judicial activism bitterly disagreed with the decision, while those who believe in judicial restrain generally applauded the decision. The Constitution has likewise survived presidential crises. Consider the great scandalsthe Crdit Mobilier (Grant), Teapot Dome (Harding) and Watergate (Nixon). Our system has survived two presidential impeachmentsAndrew Johnson (1868) and William Jefferson Clinton (1998), and four assassinations Abraham Lincoln (1865), James A. Gareld (1881), William McKinley (1898), and John F . Kennedy (1963). And from 1974 to 1977 our nation had both a President (Gerald R. Ford) and a Vice President (Nelson Rockefeller), neither of whom was elected by the people! Our Constitution has withstood great social upheavals, such as the Whiskey Rebellion (1791) and the Dorr Rebellion (1841). It has withstood assassinations of charismatic American leadersMalcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Robert Kennedy (1968). And, it survived

december 2008

542
the greatest of all challenges, the Civil Warthe deadliest conagration that pitted brother against brother, sister against sister, and redounded in some 618,000 deaths. But there are some reasons to question whether this great document can survive. Is there anything that lasts forever? Perhaps love, truth, or Scripture last forever? Certainly, human esh does not. If we are fortunate to live a long life, each of us will experience physical and mental decline. Is there anything humans build that will not deteriorate with time? Every building, bridge, monument or structure will ultimate decay and crumble without constant upkeep and repair. Consider the ancient Hebrew passage: And this too shall pass. In 484 B.C., Greek historian Herodotus, observed: There is nothing permanent except change. And, please note, when Benjamin Franklin quipped, nothing in this world is certain, but death and taxes, he was actually referring to the U.S. Constitution. Let us draw upon some students of history Edward Gibbon, Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee, and Paul Kennedy. British philosopher and historian Edward Gibbon authored the six-volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1788), one of the most substantial and controversial historical treatises of modern times. It was Gibbons thesis that the collapse of this great empire was largely the result of overexpansionism and internal corruption. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the articial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, rst oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and nally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians. In his two-volume classic, The Decline of the West (1918-1922), German philosopher and historian Oswald Spengler pessimistically posits that all civilizations inevitably pass through life cyclesfrom youth through maturity and old age to death, and that Western culture had entered the period of decline. This autumn phase, according to Spengler, is characterized by the growth
VSOTD.COM 3 Reasons for Pessimism

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

of sprawling cities, the politics of greed, the cultural disconnect with the past, and the loss of common values and goals. English historian Arnold Toynbees 12-volume, A Study of History (1934-1961) chronicled the rise and fall of 26 great civilizations. According to Toynbee, Civilizations, I believe, come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge confronts them which they fail to meet. It is Toynbees central thesis that a civilizations survival depends on the resourcefulness of its leaders to respond successfully to successive cultural, religious and economic challenges. Hence, according to Toynbee, whether or not a civilization declines depends on the quality of its leaders. More recently, Yale professor Paul Kennedy studies the efcacy and limits of nation-states in The Decline and Fall of Great Powers (1987). In this thoughtprovoking work, Kennedy traces the history of world powers, including the Hapsburg, French, Spanish, British, Prussian, and Austrian-Hungarian empires, from 1500 through 1980. It is Kennedys overarching theme that superpowers decline due to military and economic overstretch. According to Kennedy, great nations increasingly become involved in global, military affairs as a way of protecting their interests. But the great cost associated with maintaining military presence places increasing strain on the states economy. As the superpower borrows and runs up signicant trade decits, its inuence is weakened and eventually declines. I recognize, of course, that these historical theses are not ironclad. Each work has generated scores of criticism from thoughtful scholars who view the same phenomenon through different lenses. I am equally cognizant of the fact that civilizations and constitutions are not one and the same; civilizations and nationstates may jettison constitutions without necessarily declining. Rather, I offer the aforementioned examples to demonstrate that change happens, that seemingly nothing lasts forever, and this includes great world powers. So, can we draw any parallels between these former great powers and the present-day United States? Consider some external and internal problems facing the United States today, and how each could threaten our constitutional republic. We now live in the age of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. At least nine nation-states have tested nuclear weapons, including Russia, France, India, Pakistan, China and North Korea. Many states have the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran. The proverbial toothpaste is out of the tube. Just try to get it back in. Compounding this is the
3 Weapons of Mass Destruction

richard J. hardy
distinct possibility that terrorists could detonate a bomb in the United States. On one of the earliest broadcasts of NBCs Meet the Press, host Lawrence Spivak asked guest Bernard Baruch if there was any way to prevent a terrorist from blowing up New York City with an atomic bomb. Baruch responded, that the only way to prevent that would be with a crowbar. That is, the authorities would have to open each and every package. That would be both impractical and would likely violate innocent peoples civil liberties. The challenge for our leaders is how to check the spread of terrorism without diminishing our civil liberties. An overreaction to perceived threats could, indeed, signicantly weaken our Constitution. Yet, without the necessary security, our freedoms would mean nothing. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best when he addressed Congress on July 4, 1861: Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence? U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, a champion of civil liberties, put it even more succinctly: This Constitution is not a suicide pact (Terminello v. Chicago, 1949). Our growing national debt should be a major concern. The Gross National Debt is what our U.S. national government owes to creditors, those who hold U.S. debt instrumentsTreasury Bills, U.S. Savings Bonds, State and Local Government Securities, Notes, etc. If we can believe the National Debt Clock, the United States is now $9.7 trillion in arrears, and going in debt at the rate of $1.93 billion a day. By contrast, the U.S. national debt in 1791 was $75 million; by the time I nish speaking tonight, our national debt will have greatly exceeded that gure. The ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product is approaching 37 percent, the highest in nearly 50 years. Roughly 40 percent of that debt must go into the Federal Reserve System. The remaining 60 percent is owed to private persons (pensions), corporation, state and local governments, and foreign investors and governments. Among the largest foreign investors are Japan ($590 billion), China ($502 billion), and the United Kingdom ($250 billion). Just the interest payments on our national debt constitute the second largest expenditure (19 percent) of the General Fund (the largest is defense spending at 30 percent). The yearly interest payment on the national debt will soon reach $400 billionthat will exceed what the federal government spends annually on environmental protection, education, transportation and homeland security combined (Detroit Free Press, July 31, 2008). Compounding this national debt is the growing use of congressional earmarking, a new moniker for old-fashion pork barrel legislation. Earmarks are pet
3 Economic Concerns

543
projects that are not necessarily of overriding national importance; they enable members of Congress to bring home federal monies to their districts, and often reward campaign contributors with contracts or projects that help line their pockets. According to the Constitution, bills must be approved by Congress and be signed by the President. But earmarks do not follow the typical legislative route; committees, sans the scrutiny of the entire legislative chamber, can approve them. The number of earmarks has increased at an alarming rate and has doubtlessly contributed to the federal decit. In 1996, there were less than 300 earmarks, but today there are an estimated 11,700 earmarks. This adds up to billions in wasteful spending. Social Security may be a ticking time bomb. Although the U.S. is now running a Social Security surplus, it really does not go into the lock box, but is used to fund the government. When Social Security came into effect in the mid-to-late 1930s, it was thought to be a hedge for those who retired. The dependency ratio was 17:1, meaning there were 17 people paying into the system for everyone who took out. The money went into a fund, which built up interest, and that interest was used to fund the recipients. At that time, the life expectancy of the average American was about 61 years; thus, most people died four years before their Social Security kicked in at age 65. Today, due to enlarged coverage and expanded life expectancy, now about 78 years, the dependency ratio has changed dramatically. Today, the dependency ratio is about 3:1, and when the post-World War II baby-boomers hit retirement, that ration could reach 2:1. Obviously, something must be done, but our current leaders fear adverse political consequences if they attempt to overhaul the system. Things dont bode well for the U.S. housing market. We are seeing record defaults on home mortgages (1.2 million in just the second quarter of 2008), due largely to the sub-prime lending and ballooning adjustable rate mortgages extended to high-risk borrowers. Many highrisk lenders are on the verge of meltdown, and efforts are underway to have the federal government bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This will ultimately cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. And this could have ripple effects increased interest rates, vacant properties, loss of urban revenues, perhaps an increase in criminal activity. Our nations growing energy crisis further compounds our economic woes. We are all now painfully aware of the energy crisis at hand. The United States has just 4.4 percent of the worlds population but consumes
december 2008 3 Energy Concerns 3 Home Foreclosures 3 Social Security Concerns

544
about 25 percent of the worlds oil. The U.S. produces only 33 percent of its daily crude oil needs; 67 percent is imported, mainly from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela. The days of $5 per barrel of crude oil are long gone. In 2006, The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force warned that our nations addiction to oil and our dependency on foreign oil are undercutting our economy and national security. The report further warns that energy suppliers, such as Russian, Iran and Venezuela, can undermine our foreign policy interests, especially with China and India, two nations that are accelerating their demand for oil. It is now obvious the United States must increase domestic production of oil and transition into the use of alternate sources of energy. We nearly all agree on that, but the question is how we are going to do it. In his book, Civil Society: The Underpinnings of American Democracy (1999,), Brian OConnell notes, the history of other democracies teaches us that the greatest threat often comes from within and that many of the threats to our civil society relate to misunderstanding of what it is and its relevance to the functions and preservation of democracy (p. 79). I believe OConnells observation is particularly relevant to American democracy. Aside from the Native Americans, ours is a nation of immigrants. Like a wonderful tossed salad, our polity is composed of people from every part of the globe. People seek to join us for many reasonsto gain political asylum, to reconnect with family, to seek riches, to secure a quality education, and, most importantly, to seek freedom. Immigration has often come in large waves of people from particular parts of the world. Transitions are not easy, and each signicant inux brings temporary social and cultural conicts. We are now witnessing a very signicant change. The population of the United States has tripled in the past century. Approximately one-third of the estimated 300 million Americans are now classied as minorities, and roughly 45 percent of all American children under the age of 5 are minorities. Our nation is becoming more and more diverse, and with that often comes cultural clashes. Much has been written about the growing cultural divide (e.g., James D. Hunters The Cultural Wars: The Struggle to Dene America, 1992; Morris P . Fiorina, et. al.s Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, 2004; and Samuel P. Huntingtons Who Are We?: The Challenge to Americas National Identity, 2004). We appear deeply divided over issues relating to religion, immigration, voter registration, and educational curriculum. Perhaps the current red state-blue state voting pattern is a manifestation of this growing rift. Will we be able to come together or will our people continue
VSOTD.COM 3 Social/Cultural Concerns

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

to drift apart? Hence, there are reasons to be both optimistic and pessimistic about the future of our Constitution and the Republic it creates. In pondering whether our nation is ascending or declining, I am reminded of the commencement address delivered at the University of Missouri by the great humorist and humanitarian, Bill Cosby. Dr. Cosby told the large assembly of the days when he was a struggling young student at Temple University. He has a political science professor that frequently asked rhetorical questions. At the close of class on a Friday afternoon, the professor asked the class to consider whether the glass he was holding was half full or half empty. That weekend Bill pondered the question, then asked his grandmother what she thought. Cosbys grandmother, an elderly woman with just a third grade education, quickly responded. Thats easy, Bill, it depends on whether youra pourin or a drinkin! Let us return to the central question of this lecture: Will our Constitution last? Perhaps it depends on our perspective and whether you think we are poorin or drinkin. Personally, I would like to think we are still pouring. But I do agree with Professor Arnold Toynbee (Civilization on Trial, 1948) that our fate will depend upon the ability of our leaders to meet successive challenges. But the leaders I am talking about are civic leaders. Leadership is the ability to inuence the behavior of individuals in a group or organization in order to achieve some common goal. It is the art of inspiring, motivating, and achieving. Leadership is the driving force behind any company, regiment, school, rm, union, church, agency or nation. And civic leaders are those who are motivated by the public good, as opposed to pure self-interest. But how do you dene public good? To borrow a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart, I dont know how to dene public interest, but I know what it is when I see it. The closest anyone has come to dening it, in my opinion, was my late colleague at the University of Missouri, Professor Lloyd Manning Wells. He said, Public interest is what makes young men and women go to war for their country, and old men and women plant trees. I recall a public opinion survey some years ago that indicated that only 19 percent of all Americans ever attend a public meeting, such as a PTA meeting or city council meeting. That same survey also indicated only 12 percent ever took the time to contact a public ofcial, and only about ten percent of the citizens ever contributed to a political campaign. Perhaps this is accurate. But here is what friend once told me, and I believe it to be fairly accurate. In any organization, be it
3 The Role of Civic Leaders 3 Poorin or Drinkin?

richard J. hardy
a school, church or civic organization, only about one or two percent of the people make things happen. There are roughly another ve to six percent who will help you make those things happen. These are the people who will help you sell the tickets, park the cars, set up chairs, clean up, etc. Roughly ve percent of the people follow each and every thing that goes on in the organization. These are the citizens who read the newspapers, follow the news, and meet in coffee shops, faculty lounges, or around the water cooler and solve the worlds problems every day. But they dont do anything! And the rest of the people, the remaining 76 to 78 percent ask, what, What happened? Why have my taxes gone up? Why did government do this or that? Well, tonight, I believe I am talking to the top six percentthe civic leaders who can make things happen. There are common elements that all effective civic leaders must possess. I believe effective civic leaders today must: a) have a vision, b) stand rm on principles, c) be effective politicians, and d) possess the broad knowledge that a liberal arts education can provide. Let us look at each element. The rst element of civic leadership is vision. As Carl Sandburg notes, Nothing happens unless rst a dream. Every great leader has a vision of what needs to be done, what people need to do and in what direction the enterprise must head. Thats exactly what James Madison did when he crafted the Virginia Plan, the blueprint of our Constitution, in the solitude of his room in Montpelier! Dont underestimate the importance of vision and imagination. Look at everything in this roomthe lights, your cell phone, the chairs you are sitting on, the audio visual equipment, your glasses, etc. Every great idea, invention or social movement started in the mind of just one person. And that person can be you. It is the leaders primary responsibility to generate that vision, to breathe life into an organization, to energize people, to look to the future---it is the hallmark of all great civic leaders. It is not enough just to envision something. Civic leadership requires action. And the most effective leaders, in my opinion, are innovators, people who are unafraid to take risks and willing to roll up their sleeves and tackle difcult tasks. Anybody can sit on the sidelines and criticize. It takes a real civic leader to take action. Perhaps the ultimate reason why most people dont get involved is their fear of what others may think. We can learn from Aesops words, some 26 centuries ago. Aesop told the fable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey. According to the story, an old man and the little boy lived in the mountains, and set out one morning
3 Action 3 Vision

545
to sell their small donkey in the village below. The man and boy began their long journey by leading the donkey down the twisting pathway. Soon they encountered critics along the road who mocked the old man and boyLook at that old man and little boy, there they are walking when they could be riding that sure-footed donkey. The man thought the critics were right. So the man and the boy mounted the donkey and continued their trek. They soon encountered other critics--Look at the old man and little boy, they are going to break the donkeys back. Thinking the critics were correct, the old man dismounted and led the donkey as the little boy rode. Again, they encountered other critics--Look at that lazy little boy riding, while that poor old man has to walk. Believing the critics, the old man got on the donkey and let the little boy lead. Once again, they met other critics who said, Look at that lazy old man riding, while that poor little boy has to walk. At the end of the story, according to Aesop, the old man and little boy carried the donkey to town. The moral of the story is that you cannot please everyone. You cannot make everyone like you. No matter what you do, there will be critics. Building a consensus is one thing, but waiting around for 100 percent approval before you take action will get you nowhere. Remember, they dont make statues to honor critics: that is reserved for real leaders who are not afraid to take action and suffer the critics. The second element of civic leadership is the commitment to principles, that is, moral or ethical standards. In his last public address (April 11, 1865), Abraham Lincoln said, Important principles may, and must be, inexible. I believe that all inspiring leaders Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr.knew that every great movement must be based on principles. It is not always easy to hold rm to your core values. Perhaps the principles most valued are honesty, integrity, and respect for your fellow citizens. Of course, all civic leaders make mistakes. But the most successful ones are those who admit to their errors in judgment, learn from their mistakes, and vow not to do it again. And for the most part, Americans have the capacity to forgive almost anything if you confess your transgressions and vow not to repeat them. What Americans dont tolerate in their civic leaders, however, is hypocrisy. Effective civic leaders are good politicians. Lets face it. Most people see politics as something sordid, nasty, corrupt, or an activity that good people should avoid. And this is understandable, considering what people have said about politics over the years. Consider just a few of the digs. Ambrose Bierce once wrote, Politics is the conduct
december 2008 3 Politics 3 Principles

546
of public affairs for private advantage. New Dealer Louis McHenry Howe quipped, One does not adopt politics as a profession and remain honest. And then there was that famous scene in the movie Forrest Gump, when the doctor told Mrs. Gump, Forrests legs are ne, Mrs. Gump, but his spine is as crooked as a politician. Politics is the art of drawing dividing lines. This is my denition of politics. Lines, lines, everywhere there are lines. Lines are any real or imaginary set of point that people use to distinguish, separate, identify, classify or categorize any person, thing or idea. Indeed, from the beginning of time, the world has been lled with lines. Lines can be found on a football eld, on a highway, in tax schedules, in military ranks, national boundaries, city limits, or classications of ideology. Line drawing is instinctive, innate and universal. They are found in all cultures, nationalities, and races. And any person who has the authority and legitimacy to draw a dividing line is a politician, whether that person is a parent, teacher, preacher, accountant, supervisor, coach, judge or an elected public ofcial. The Constitution is lled with dividing lines. Some of the lines are bright lines that are precisely drawn. For example, a person must be 30 years old to be a U.S. Senator or 18 to vote in federal elections. But most of the lines are fuzzy and subject to interpretation, such as cruel or unusual punishment, probable cause, establishment of religion, or ex post facto laws. When the Supreme Court decides what these concepts mean, they are drawing dividing lines. But, to be successful, politicians must be grounded in principles. Above, all, politicians must look for the natural breaks and seek a proper balance between what most people will consider right or just. The worst thing a politician can do is draw an articial line, one that is perceived to be unfair or unjust, and one that will allow the opposition to break through the line and redound in uncertainty. Again, effective civic leaders are skilled politicians who understand and can practice the art of drawing dividing lines. Finally, it is essential that todays civic leaders, like those of our Framers, be grounded in the liberal arts. The arts and sciences offer us a well-rounded education, as opposed to specialized, technical training. Rather than teaching us what to think, the liberal arts education teaches us how to think. Technical training, while critically important to the functioning of our society, is often ephemeral. Learning how to use a machine or a computer is important, but think how quickly machines and computers become obsolete. The liberal arts and sciences provide us with tools to continue learning for a lifetime. The study of mathematics and philosophy will
VSOTD.COM 3 Breadth of Knowledge

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

sharpen your analytical thinking. The study of chemistry, physics and biology will enable us to understand the complexities of our world. The study of English and foreign languages will enable us to communicate more effectively. History will give us perspectives on our lives. Courses in religious studies, women studies and AfricanAmerican studies will foster understanding. The study of psychology will enable us to understand ourselves, and the study of anthropology and sociology will enable us to understand how people act in groups and in society. And of course, the study of politics will teach us to govern and to know where to draw the dividing lines. Only civic leaders empowered with education, experience and knowledge, will be able to balance the two most important struggles we face in our Constitutional democracythe never-ending struggle between 1) liberty and authority, and 2) liberty with equality. The survival of our Constitution and republic that it spawned will depend upon civic leaders who possess the broad understanding of our highly complex and highly interrelated social, cultural, economic and political system that only a liberal arts education can bring. Anybody can steer the ship, John Maxwell writes, but it takes a real leader to chart the course. I believe that any technical expert can carry out day-to-day functions, but it will take someone educated in the liberal arts and sciences to chart the course. It has been said, In all things essentialunity, in all elsediversity. We Americans come in all kinds of packages; we are a diverse people, people of different races, ethnic heritage, religious convictions, musical tastes, ideologies and philosophical beliefs. Aside from our common language, we share at least one common threadour Constitution. Do not take this great document for granted. Learn to appreciate its historical roots and comprehend its words. Understand that it is not a perfect document; rather, it is a political document, and that politics is really the art of drawing dividing lines. I believe that Chief Justice Warren Burger best sums up what our Constitution is about. According to Burger: The Constitution does not solve our problems. It allows people the freedom and opportunity to solve their own problems; it provides for representatives of the people to help solve problems; it provides an executive to enforce the laws and administer government; it provides a judicial branch to say what the law means. From there on it is up to the people. Ultimately, the fate of our Constitution depends on civic leaders. I will leave you with this aphorism offered by the sage Benjamin Franklin. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost. For want of a rider,
3 Final Words of Wisdom

JUdith rodin
the battle was lost. And for want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. Oh, you see, the kingdom was lost for want of a horseshoe nail. My fellow citizens, civic leaders one

547
and all, you are, I am, we are those proverbial horseshoe nails, and together, we can and will make a difference. And I thank you very much!

Climate Change Adaptation

THE NEXT GREAT CHALLENGE FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Address by JUDITH RODIN, President of the Rockefeller Foundation Delivered to the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2008 Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, February 15, 2008

m delighted that David Baltimore and Alice Huang, a Rockefeller Foundation trustee, invited me to speak tonight about the Foundations commitment to addressing climate change. For almost a century, the Rockefeller Foundation has supported scientic inquiry, the discovery and development of new elds, and the application of science and technology, in John D. Rockefellers words, for the betterment of mankind. In fact, one of the very rst summits on the potential impacts of global warming was held in 1976 at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center. The AAAS is exceptional, as John [Holdren] phrased it in his presidential address a year ago, because its committed to advancing science, not only for sciences sake, but for humanitys. You play a vital role in a free societysupporting multidisciplinary efforts both to analyze and assess our world and to actively shape it. In the best tradition of both organizations, Im honored to join you. I dont have to say that the last decade has witnessed something of a bull market for climate science. Thousands of scholars have engaged in an unprecedented research effort that has convinced all but the most recalcitrant skeptics that human activity is causing climate change and that climate changes effects demand concentrated attention and immediate, robust action. This extraordinary work not only led to a Nobel Peace Prize for former Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; it laid down an incontrovertible scientic basis for the world to understand that climate change is real, it is happening now, and it is with us for the long haul. We have all heard the rhetoric about governments and multilateral organizations reaching a crossroads. I believe no less is true for the scientic community. Now that scientists have substantiated, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the climate crisis is upon us, they must shift their research focus to its solutions. This weekends theme is science and technology from a global perspective. So, over the next few minutes, I will briey explain the Rockefeller Foundations global perspective, and then explore the role science and technology must play in solving the intersecting climate change and global poverty crises.

First, I will briey draw from two bodies of scientic knowledge, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Fourth Assessment Report of the I.P .C.C., to demonstrate that environmental degradation, climate change, and poverty are inextricably connected. Then, I will complicate this important body of work with the following assertion: unplanned urbanization in the developing world will exacerbate those impacts of climate change which are already experienced by the rural poor. And nally, I will talk about the need for new tools, new techniques, and new technologies to stabilize and reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, support the efforts of underdeveloped, underserved communities to survive the environmental degradation human beings have already caused, and strengthen our shared future by restoring ecosystems and expanding social and economic opportunity. To begin from a global perspective, it is safe to assert that humanity is better off today than it has been at any point in history. Were beneciaries of revolutions in health and medicine, and profound advances in the physical and social sciences. Life expectancy has doubled in a century. We share markets and capital, knowledge and ideas, and dramatically more diverse communities. More people than ever have a voice in their government. In the last three decades, illiteracy has dropped by half worldwide. Only three countries of the 102 on the U.N. Human Development Index have seen socioeconomic conditions deteriorate. A just published Brookings report projects that by 2020 the ranks of the worlds middle class will balloon by 1.8 billion people, and include an astounding 52 percent of the total population, up from 30 percent today. Almost a tenth of the way through this new century, we have much to be encouraged by and optimistic about. The dilemma, though, is that not everyones lives are improving fast enough, nor are they improving equally. Half of the people on earth live on less than two dollars a day, roughly equivalent to the average income of two hundred years ago. A billion people live in abject poverty, with neither running water nor enough to eat. Ten million children succumb to preventable or treatable
december 2008

548
diseases every year. And our planet is an especially unequal place because of environmental degradation and climate change. Over the last several years, literally thousands of scientists have proven the case that among the many serious challenges posed by global climate change, one of the gravest is inequity. We know unequivocally, in the words of the I.P.C.C., that our world is warming and that the consequences are worsening. The entire continent of Africa, in fact, emits less than one-tenth the greenhouse gasses of the United States. So, the people who walk with the smallest carbon footprint also lack the nancial, technical, and social resources to prepare for and respond to climate risk. Of course, pollution in one place affects the environment everywhere else. This certainly is not a new idea. We all understand how a single deed can reverberate in ways we neither anticipate nor are necessarily conscious of. What is different today is the scope and scale of our collective actions: in a word, globalization. Globalization is propelled by structural transformations in nance, scientic discovery, technology, and communication. Over a trillion dollars cross national borders every day in currency transactions. IBM predicts that within four years the worlds information base will double in size every eleven hours. And whats most astounding: given the opportunity, anyone, anywhere, can exploit these sweeping transformations. Globalization is the foremost driver of change in the world today, with implications both benecial and burdensome. Whether it serves as an engine for good or ill is entirely up to us. And if were intelligent, innovative, and socially conscious, we can harness globalization to benet more people. We can accelerate the pace of progress more equitably in more places. At the Rockefeller Foundation, we call this smart globalization, and it has a number of corollaries. It means that the same tools and techniques, the same strategies and solutions that work in one place can be transmitted, translated, and transformed to work in another. It means the intellectual processesthe methodologiesthat enable evolution in one domain can spark innovations that make sense elsewhere. It means that citizens and governments can redirect the torrent of expanding markets and economies to benet communities more equitably and to advance the status of individuals left behind, often by virtue of gender, race, and ethnicity. It means that data and discovery arent limited to those with laboratory access or library cards. Learning that happens in one place can be universally accessible. It means that we still face common dangers, but also benet collectively from new competencies to absorb those risks more equally. In light of this, heres a proposition to consider:
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

If our approach to climate change is grounded in the bedrock of science, if it pivots from proving that climate change is happening toward choosing and charting a way to address it, if it promotes smart policies, if it leads to more research funding, if it builds bridges, not barriers, between policymakers and scholars, funders and researchers, business and community leaders, then we can stabilize the earths climate, support the otherwise imperiled survival of hundreds of millions of people, and strengthen opportunity in the process, responsibly growing the economy to benet more people, more equitably, in more places. This would be smart globalization indeed. Lets turn, then, to the data establishing the connections among environmental degradation, climate change, and poverty. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, undertaken by 1,400 scientists from 95 countries over a four-year period, audited the worlds peoples and environment. It stated that human actions have degraded ecosystems more drastically in the last fty years than in all of history. This clearly poses a major development challenge. The 700 million rural poor who live on less than a dollar a day are often those most reliant on natural ecosystems and climates for survival and subsistence: clean water for drinking and shing, protected habitat for hunting and grazing, and productive soil for agriculture. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, most of the work in the world, at the start of the century, was still performed in elds, sheries, and forests54 percent in developing countries. Up to 70 percent of the poors wealth comes from ecosystems, crops, gardens, livestock, and woodlands. So, environmental stresses affect those with the fewest means the most. Continued degradation also emerges from and contributes to global climate change. Think about this: deforestation currently accounts for roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as all the cars and trucks in the world. Human actionsincluding deforestation and human reliance on fossil fuels have correlated with both an enormous increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and a rise in average temperatures of 0.8 degrees Centigrade especially since the middle of the last century. As a consequence, the I.P .C.C. reafrmed this past fall, snow levels are down, sea levels are up, and the deleterious consequences are manysevere and more frequent oods foremost among them. The I.P .C.C. also documented three alarming realities for development efforts. First, decades of warming are probably inevitable. Our past emissions will continue warming the air and oceans into the future. Second, the consequences of climate change will be severe: rising sea levels, more frequent, stronger storms, coastal erosion, diminishing biodiversity, continuing loss of glaciers and

JUdith rodin
arctic ice, salinity in freshwater aquifers, and an increase in heat-related diseases like malaria and dengue fever. And third, climate change will have the greatest effect on the communities who have done the least to cause it. If all this were not intractable enough, we face another vector of this global challenge at the climate-poverty nexus: accelerating, unplanned urbanization, which tends to concentrate poor people in high-risk areas. More people live in cities than ever before. In 1950, the worlds total population was 2.2 billion. New York City was the only metropolis with a population greater than 10 million. In the years since, the planets population has tripled, concentrating in cities, most located in the developing world. Within a decade, more than 500 cities will have populations exceeding one million. By 2020, seven metropolitan areas in developing countries will have more than 20 million inhabitants. Indeed, by 2030, more than 60 percent of the worlds population will live in cities, with enormous growth in Africa and Asia. For the most part, these are not cities with postcard skylines. UN-HABITAT projects that within three decades, one of every three people will live in near total squalor: packed tightly on ecologically fragile land, lacking sanitation and clean water, vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather. Cities have historically been engines of vitality, crossroads of commerce and culture. Now, they are epicenters of our global climate crisis. The U.N. forecasts that 50 million people will become environmental refugees, the vast majority absorbed in slums, by the end of this decade, a mere two years away. In many instances the migratory pattern looks like this: climate change and environmental degradation alter rural agricultural cycles, diminish crop yields, and hasten the exodus to informal, urban, squatter-slums. I returned last Saturday from India, where Goldman Sachs projects that 31 rural villagers will move to underdeveloped cities every minute for the next 43 years, a great migration of 700 millionand many of these cities are located on ood-prone river deltas and coastlines. When migrants arrive in urban areas they face intensied climate-induced dangers. The 2005 Maharashtra oods in India killed more than a thousand peoplemost of them slum-dwellersin and around Mumbai, the worlds sixth largest city. The rain, though severe, wasnt the only culprit. Poor drainage, degraded ecosystems, and uncontrolled, sprawling development swelled into a perfect storm. The consequences of climate change in India and around the world are not a far-off prospect. Theyre happening now. And communities are in critical need of wholesale solutions above and beyond catchments for rainwater and trees to prevent erosion. Indeed, communities around the world need better

549
weaponsnew tools, techniques, and strategiesif they hope to tame the three-headed hydra of climate risk, poverty, and precipitous urbanization. One such weaponand the strategy most discussed these daysis mitigation. If our present levels of emissions continue unabated, you can see where I.P.C.C. scenarios suggest were headed: average temperature increases far outside the range of variation from the last thousand years and exaggerated global weirding, the term coined by Hunter Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, to describe the range of more intense weather events we all experience with greater frequency. Even just stabilizing emissions poses a signicant technological and political challenge. But we must meet it. Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala at Princeton have rened one conceptual road-map to the necessary reductions. The idea is this: the difference between our current rate of emissions and a plateau comprises what they call a stabilization triangle. They suggest that we can choose any seven of fteen manageable wedges, each of which represents a billion tons of carbon, to ll the gap between the two. But we must do more than just stabilizing emissions. We must decrease them. And we have a spectrum of possible wedges from which to choose: efciency and conservation, new techniques for carbon sequestration, improved access to mass transit, and readily available, affordable clean energy, just to mention a few. All of these are important ideas. No single, isolated action will ease emissions enough. We must take a portfolio approach and develop as many elements as possible. Let me touch on just one more mitigation option which has particular potential for rural poverty reduction: agriculture and forestry. First a little background. The Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the Gates Foundation to help increase agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa, where over a third of the population lives in drought or drought-prone areas. An International Livestock Research Institute report suggests that, in the next decade, climate change could shorten sub-Saharan Africas growing season by several weeks and decrease yields from rain-fed agriculture by as much as half. The I.P .C.C. projects that between 25 and 40 percent of animals in sub-Saharan national parks may become endangeredwhich, incidentally, would devastate tourism, one of the continents largest and fastest growing industries. With our partners, were already building capacity across the entire value chain: better seeds, more fertile and better managed soil, access to credit and output markets, and strengthened water and resource management. Its become increasingly clear as we develop this work, however, that if we expect our poverty reduction and agricultural productivity strategies
december 2008

550
to bear fruit, we also must prepare for the effects of climate change that are already happening. So, the Rockefeller Foundation also supports efforts to link agronomy and climate science, expand the use of local climate data in forecasting, connect smallholder farmers with insurance against drought and ooding, and initiate policy measures that will increase the climate resilience of African farmers. One potential smart globalization idea is this: new policies and improved measurements could enable markets to reward the rural poor for CO2 sequestration and ecosystem repairfor actively participating in mitigation and adaptation. This would encourage efforts to reduce deforestation, reforest and restore healthy ecosystems, increase agro-forestry, and promote conservation tillage. Under such a plan, many of the benets would not go to governments, but directly to smallholder farmers, the vast majority of whom in Africa are women. Studies afrm that these women are much more likely than men to reinvest that income in nutrition, health, education, and family farms or small businesses, in turn spurring economic development that benets their own communities and countries. In this instance and countless others, addressing global poverty and climate change are not necessarily in competition, as some have tried to argue, but canand shouldbe complementary, mutually reinforcing objectives. The best way to break one is to bend the other. Similar work is important in urban areas, where there must be lower cost technologies developed for green, affordable housing, improved mass transit, and new, substantial investments in renewable energy and other carbon-neutral technologies. These can simultaneously fuel the next great wave of economic expansion and dramatically reduce emissions in cities. But we must also focus on adaptation. Since were likely too late to stop the global warming thats already occurred, we also must gure out how to survive it. Currently, however, there is far less attention paid in the scientic and policy communities to adaptationto the ways we can help people and environments cope with whats occurred and with whats coming. The Rockefeller Foundation recently announced a $70 million climate change initiative that concentrates on building resilience to a changing, challenging natural environment. As we see it, resilience incorporates ve dimensions. First, information. Effective adaptation will always be locally driven. Successful approaches may, in fact, vary from region to region, city to city, or even neighborhood to neighborhood. But as the communities affected by climate change shape their preparations for and responses to it, they need access to sound data and solid research. They need sophisticated measurement
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

and assessment tools, integrated information about the risks those tools reveal, and the best substantiated approaches to minimize them. Second, infrastructure. When Katrinas storm surge drowned parts of New Orleans, Americans saw rst-hand what happens when severe weather, shoddy planning, urban infrastructure failures, and abiding poverty collide. The constellation of circumstances that aligned in New Orleans is not unique. These same vulnerabilities fester latently in cities around the globe. Infrastructure is more than roads and sewers. It includes all the institutions and processes put in place to manage society. Whether in Mumbai or on the Mississippi Delta, communities need institutional infrastructure thats more agile and more exible so they can adapt and prepare even more effectively for climate change. And new research must help illuminate which specic improvements make the most sense in which specic geographies. Third, insurance. Neither meteorologists nor climatologists can predict or prepare vulnerable communities for everything. Underserved populations need access to the social and economic security that comes from sharing risk. And the more people who share the risk, the lower the cost of coverage. But insurance also encourages individuals to lessen their risks in advance of extreme weather. And we hope families may decide not to live in ood plains if the price of insurance is prohibitive. Fourth, institutional capacity. Resilience requires that individuals and communities be empowered to prepare for and respond to crises from the groundup. But theres also a crucial role for governments and institutions to play in supporting resilience from the topdown. And in both instances, sound decision-making is reliant upon sound data. And fth, integrated systems. Successful adaptation strategies are holistic. They integrate urban planning, land-use regulation, water management, infrastructure investment, especially in energy and transportation, early-warning systems, and emergency and disaster preparedness, among many other elements. Basic and applied research is imperative for all ve dimensions of resilience. We must set a progressive agenda for highlevel science. I started my remarks by suggesting that we have reached a turning point for climate research. In describing the problem and identifying the impacts, climate science has transformed the way we think about our world and our obligations to the future. But now our scientic efforts must shape and substantiate strategies to help people cope with whats already happening in addition to focusing on strategies to mitigate future carbon emissions and climate warming. Let me highlight just one area where more research

JUdith rodin
is needed to help support resilience: the category of essential diagnostic tools. Ill elevate four, in particular: improved measuring and monitoring, more thorough integration of data, more technically sophisticated vulnerability assessments, and new analytics to understand and anticipate environmental change. We must rst focus on strengthening the science of observationimproving capabilities to detect risk. Youve heard the phrase what matters is measured. Yet, worldwide, we have some of the least accurate data about the places that face the most danger. According to the I.P.C.C., climate models for subSaharan Africa are currently imprecise because they lack sufcient inputs about storm strength, weather patterns, oods, and droughts. This years UN Human Development Report suggests one of the simplest reasons for this. The African continent has the worlds lowest density of meteorological stations: one site for every 25,000 kilometers, one-eighth of the minimum level recommended by the World Meteorological Organization. The Netherlands, by comparison, has one site for every 700 kilometers, four times greater than the W.M.O.s suggested minimum. The Human Development Report also showed that this disparity is mirrored in international scholarship. Twothirds of all papers published in the two most reputable climate journals focus on Europe and North America. Literature on Africa, however, accounts for a mere 4 percent of this increasingly vital study. An obvious priority, then, is better measuring and monitoring of geographical areas where climate risk and poverty intersect. We clearly need substantial and sustained investment in rapidly evolving technologies like satellite mapping and geographic information systems. And we must reduce the costs of their applications so that developing countries can access and apply them in tracking the status of their ecosystems, including urban sprawl as well as deforestation, soil erosion, and climate change. This past November, the Group on Earth Observations, an intergovernmental summit, convened in Cape Town. They announced a new agreement between China and Brazil to provide satellite imagery free of charge to African countries, a breakthrough in information ow. Similar commitments are on the way. They will be a boon for poverty alleviation programs in Africa, but airborne imaging must also be adapted and applied to the growing problems of urban areas. Airborne imaging could visualize dense aggregations of the urban poor, for example, which may be just the push that developingcountry governments need to recognize and then reconcile with whole communities previously excluded from census data. This underscores another need as well: high-tech solutions must be reinforced with boots on the groundtraditional data-gathering campaigns, which

551
cant be undertaken from space, and which have also been woefully underfunded in recent years. But expanded access to these technologies is not enough. We also must improve researchers abilities to capture high resolution images and data across the electromagnetic spectrum. Currently, for example, many deforestation estimates are only accurate to within plusor-minus 50 percent. Yet, this information is essential for developing countries to manage forests, human, and natural ecosystems and to provide a basis for measuring and monitoring carbon if emerging economies are going to participate in budding carbon markets. Which brings us to a second priority: integrating existing, fragmented databases into analytic maps. The Rockefeller Foundation recently commissioned just such an impact study that will gather and organize data across a range of categoriessea levels, heat indices, storm activity, and health implicationsand then link this new research with existing data on patterns of poverty, migration, and urban expansion. But as they undertake this work, researchers are nding it difcult to integrate health data from the World Health Organization, climate data from the I.P .C.C., and storm data from weather services in meaningful, usable ways. So we need more work on comprehensive mapping of data-sets with disparate types of data. Third, once we have better organized data, we must apply them to assessments of human vulnerability. We need more diagnostics about which specic communities, cities, and ecosystems are exposed to which consequences of climate change. And we need to triage risks into short, medium, and longer-term threats so that local decision-makers, community groups, and NGOs can make sound judgments in prioritizing their responses. Local impact and adaptation models are crucial to complement global climate models. And, fourth, if were going to anticipate and respond to changes, we need new analytics that represent and predict the patterns of changeespecially since were talking about abrupt changes and discontinuities. Its fascinating: scientic research to date has demonstrated that the earths climate system behaves in a strongly non-linear fashion. We often dont know where thresholds are until we cross them and witness irreversible collapses. One example, cited in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, makes the point. In 1992, after hundreds of years of shing, the Atlantic cod population collapsed. Scientists expected that after some furlough period, cod stocks would be restored. But now, sixteen years later, the sheries remain depleted. The ecosystem reached a tipping point and then suffered an abrupt change. When and why this type of tipping point is reached remains an open, vital question for further research. And many other crucial areas for scientic analysis are unfolding.
december 2008

552
Clearly, more multidisciplinary work is essential. We need pioneering knowledge and new elds at the intersections of agronomy, economics, and climate science for rural areas. And we need to integrate urban planning, sociology, engineering, and climate science to build safer cities. We need basic and applied research to show policymakers: how to conserve biodiversity in a less predictable world; how to desalinate aquifers and increase the freshwater supply as sea levels rise; how to provide energy, food, and water to cities as resources grow scarcer; how to communicate risks effectively so people can mobilize and evacuate when disaster is imminent. We need knowledge-based tactics to halt and hopefully reverse the expansion of deserts into agricultural regions; restore degraded coastal ecosystems that will protect us from stronger storm surges; predict where new diseases will emerge and prevent new pandemics. All of these areas are ripe for study. So, if the potential is there, and the research strategy is obvious, whats the problem? Insufcient funding for these and other areas of study. Insufcient scholarly and practical attention on developing countries challenges. And a persisting false choice: an either/or proposition that pits mitigation against adaptation. Scholars need resources to understand and better inform the effective implementation of both. According to A.A.A.S. data, the United States government spends more than $140 billion a year to support research and development. Of that $140 billion, less than 2 percent directly supports research on climate change, and one one-thousandthless than $140 millionis devoted to research on climate change adaptation. Funding is also in short supply for the application of adaptation strategies once research claries them. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recently estimated that by 2030 developing countries will face between $28 and $67 billion in adaptation costs each year. Others estimate these costs to be even higher. Yet, international funding efforts have been insufcient. In 2007, the worlds richest countries increased their contribution to the Least Developed Countries Fund for adaptation needs by a mere $43 million, bringing the total pledged to $163 million. As of September, 2007, however, only $67 million had been deliveredless than the Rockefeller Foundation, one, single philanthropy, will invest in one, single adaptation initiative. I spoke earlier about smart globalization. New regional or global carbon markets are one indispensable element of a smart globalization approach that stabilizes and reduces emissions, supports livelihoods, and carves out new paths to social and economic opportunity. The idea goes like this: if carbon emissions are reduced
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

annually through mandatory measuresachieved through a tax, cap-and-trade, or boththen the market will establish a value and price for carbon. If this happens, as has already occurred in the E.U., it will generate dual-benets: providing revenue and incentives to nance research, development, and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies, and stimulating investment in a clean- and green-tech economy that we have only begun to imagine. In this vein, the need and opportunities for investments in science, technology, and sustainable infrastructure are almost endless. But this requires leadership and political courage from the public sectorsomething in short-supply in Washington, despite the high-demand among people in the United States and, for that matter, the world-over. Thankfully, many U.S. mayors and governors are stepping up to ll the void. In fact, the Rockefeller Foundation just announced our support for a new, nonpartisan coalition, Building Americas Future, led by Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, California Governor Schwarzenegger, and New York Mayor Bloomberg. It will engage scientists and scholars, policymakers and philanthropic leaders in a crosssector effort to help cities and states prepare for the inevitable consequences of climate change and connect underserved communities with green jobs, mass transit, and energy-efcient, affordable homes. The private sector must play a leading role too, especially those companies discovering, developing, and commercializing renewable, clean energy functions. And many of them are. Let me close by saying this. Over the last decade, the scientic community tackled an enormous challenge, conrmingindisputablythat climate change is caused by humans and that its effects are increasingly harmful for the planet and its inhabitants. This, alone, was an extraordinary achievement, accomplished in the face of tremendous resistance from an entrenched status-quo. As we speak, the growing body of knowledge about the impact of human behavior on the earth, its ecosystems, and its climate is starting to push political will and even galvanize political courage. But basic and applied research must keep moving forward. We must stabilize earths climate. We must repair its ecosystems. We must support resilience. We must enable and empower millions to lift themselves from dire poverty, deprivation, and disease. None of these objectives is possible without continuing investment, inquiry, and innovation. We build, today, on a remarkable legacy of scientic achievement. In the twentieth-century, our forbearers joined together and solved the great scientic challenges of their time: inventing penicillin and a vaccine for polio, sparking a green revolution that saved a billion lives, summoning the computer age,

laUren ZalaZnicK
and mapping the human genome. In the twenty-rst century, scientists must take on an equally monumental task: designing the intellectual architecture to shelter those with the fewest means from the wrath of a warming world and imperiled environment. The DNA of globalization, if you will, produces both unprecedented challenges and the new tools, techniques, and capacities necessary to master them.

553
We can and must be smart about globalization. We can and must harness global markets to nance research and discovery and implement solutions that we already know can work. We can and must harness scientic and technological advances to promote resilience and economic development. This is the challenge with which I leave you. I hope youre energized and excited as I am by the prospect of our opportunities.

Identify, Interrogate, Innovate

THREE RULES OF BRAND-BUILDING
Address by LAUREN ZALAZNICK, President of Women and Lifestyle Entertainment Networks, NBC Universal Delivered to the American Express Consumer Services Group, New York, New York, October 15, 2008 hank you, Jud, for inviting me to speak and for sharing key insights into your business in order to help me prepare for todays remarks. American Express is incredibly meaningful to me as a consumer, and also incredibly impressive to me as a fellow business leader and brand-builder. Branding what is it exactly? Its a product environment; its a deep knowledge of your consumer; its an effervescent equation that in our case goes something like Content Plus Marketing Equals Brand. But unlike algebra, this isnt an exact science. Somehow if both the content and the marketing are at their peak, the brand is bigger than their sum. If one or the other is off, it doesnt quite add up. We look at our brand as our identity. Weve been pretty successful in carving out a very distinct identity for Bravo, for example. We know what a Bravo show looks like, what a Bravo ad looks like, and we know who our audience is even as we try to grow it. Were doing the same thing now with Oxygen, which we acquired only about ten months ago. These two cable brands are having a phenomenal year. But let me say right nowas we all know, the world has changed signicantly over the last few weeks. The ugly truth is, since I rst talked with Nancy about this meeting, GE stock has fallen by nearly 30% and American Express well, Im sure you know your own numbers as well as anyone. And for nancial servicesmore than for the cable television businessthe immediate future is cloudy to say the least. So many great names, which represented we thoughtsuch strength and endurance, now gone or greatly diminished. If there is any positive story to hold on to here, it is that we will emerge from this recession, and when we do, strong brands like American Express and General Electric will still be incredibly important and valuable. What makes me so convinced of that? Trying to get a handle on the cycles of business ups and downs, Ive

read up on what some advertisers have faced, going back around 100 years. Who has survived? Who was expected to, but didnt? Where was the reverse true, when sure goners came through tough times stronger than ever? Compared to when American Express and General Electric were founded, todays talk of challenges and tough times seems a little meek. How about facing into AmExs rst 50 yearsWestward Expansion? The Civil War? The second 50 didnt get much smootherWorld War I A decade-long nationwide Depression Oh, and World War II. Now those are some headwinds. Through the lens of advertising and customer relations, World War II was a new age in many ways. Whatever production there was got diverted to the war effort. Some consumer brands folded. But some ran ads that said, in effect: I know you cant buy our product now but when the war is over, well be there for you. Since then, research shows that advertisers who maintain or increase their spending during a recession grow prots and market share once a recovery is under way. So the work you as marketers are engaged in is more important than ever, evenor especiallywhen the bottom line is challenged. I have long admired American Express, not least for its excellence in marketing, which is truly the gold standard, or perhaps I should say the green standard, in developing highly effective, pitch-perfect marketing campaigns. American Express has carefully crafted its brand over a time period lasting more than a century and a half. With my team at NBC Universalwhich oversees not just Bravo and Oxygen but also iVillage, our environmental initiative Green Is Universal, and our female-focused cross-marketing effort Women@NBCU our notion of brands has evolved from a straight-ahead idea of a logo and tagline laid over an age and gender demographic into a full lifestyle and behavioral sell. It seems clear that if youre marketing to a rst-time parent,
december 2008

554
its no longer certain that she is 26 years old, living in a starter house, waiting for her husband to come home from work at 6:30 sharp. We know that she still might be, but she might also be 33, or 44. She denitely needs all the products new parents always did, but its the lifestage that trumps the age. In your case, maybe the old idea of who needs your Green Card, your Gold Card, and beyond, is no longer simply about what age your consumer is but what lifestage they inhabit. I cant begin to know your challengescall times at your customer call center; or new card holder increases inside your specic cardsor what todays economy means for your Corporate Card business. But I do know that the power of your brand is probably so vast that its hard to even quantify or qualify. As you may know, Im an American Express card holder. Well, let me share a consumer story with you. Three or four years ago, my annual renewal notice arrived in the mail. I looked at it, thought about how I used my cardmy green cardand frankly, it wasnt much. For whatever reason, I have a different card I use for frequent yer miles, which are important to me because I have a family of ve. My Corporate Card is a MasterCard. So my AmEx card didnt get pulled out of my wallet all that often. So I picked up the phone. Yes, I admit, I tried to cancel. And I have to tell youyour customer service folks did a great job. They just wouldnt really let me off the phone. I told them I never used it. I told them I resented my annual fee. I told them that its not true that theres no preset spending limit and I was annoyed I always had to call when I did have a big purchase to make. But then I started to have an image. An image of my wallet without that green card in its accustomed place andmore disturbingan image of me, no longer being a green card member. You see, I had been a card member for a helluva long time. The spring I was graduating from college, a card simply arrived in the mail. Welcome. Please join us. This is yours. It had become part of my identity my selfdenition and I discovered I just was not willing to give that up. I literally thought to myself, what if I get really famous and they call me up to be in one of those fantastic Member Since ads! Lauren Zalaznick member since 1984! Except she cancelled in 2003. My point isthis decision was not about utility. Not about economics or rational decision-making. It was purely about brand identity and brand loyalty. I have never even thought about cancelling since then, and doubt I ever will. This anecdote is a perfect illustration of the fact that when it comes to luxury brands, Americans are not materialistic, they are idealistic. The things are not important, the meaning of the thing is. And the meaning
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

is conveyedand in the case of American Express, conveyed very powerfullyby the brand environment in which it lives. I would suggest that there arent many major brands in the world that inspire this kind of loyalty from consumers. Certainly not any other nancial services rm, especially since were seeing some of them go poof before our eyes. And the people in this roomand those of you tuned in across the worldyou all deserve a ton of credit for building and sustaining this brand and keeping it relevant for every new generation. So with that as possibly the longest preamble in my speech-giving history, what else can I tell you about the incredibly challenging and rewarding work of brandbuilding inside a big media company, inside a really big industrial and nancial company? No matter what, we focus on three things: identifying your customer base listening to your current customers needs and keeping your customer through constant innovation. You have to identify, interrogate, and innovate. The truth is, these three principles are imbedded in your own Consumer Services brand promise. All the words and phrases that describe your mission world-class service and personal recognition access, accountability, advocacy giving consumers prestige and condence. The foundation of all of that, I believe, is in the relationship you have with your consumersa relationship that begins with understanding, listening to, and caring for your customers. We all know that a brand promise, like any mission statement, can either be a collection of empty words and phrases or an articulation of principles that are backed up by concrete action and services delivered. When the brand promise is supported by the consumers experience, then over time it becomes the connective tissue between your company and your consumersan unwritten contract that revolves around ideals and aspirations. This is where I nd parallels between American Express and Bravo, in particular. We share an aspirational mission thats based on listening to, caring for, constantly innovating to a relatively upscale and educated customer, and offering that customer prestige within whatever circle or circles he or she moves in. Knowing your customer means knowing yourself. It means knowing that American Express, like Bravo, is not for everyone. Bravo is not NBC or ABC or even TLC or VH1. You are not MasterCard or Visa. We, like you, are niche. But we both know that niche can be massor at least massively protable. AmEx had prots of some $4 billion last year. NBCUs cable propertiesa collection of highly focused niche networkscontribute more than half of NBCUs $3.6 billion in annual prots. My own

laUren ZalaZnicK
brands, the smallest in our vast conglomerate, contribute close to $1 billion of revenue. And niche brands want to be incredibly popular popular in the sense of generating buzz and interest that extends far beyond the core circle of members. That is why when it comes to marketing a niche brand, a very interesting tension arises: youre pretending to invite everyone to the party without really doing so. Because you dont really want everyone to show up. If you do, you risk alienating the core members of your club. Many customers like feeling exclusiveweve told them theyre in the know, that they deserve something that not everyone else does. The same must be true for American Express. You have the luxury, or I would say the genius, of offering the classes of cards that serve different audiences. The lure of the next card color or precious metal keeps the strivers striving. At Bravo, we want the people who are going to do the brand zealot work for us to be passionate about our content. Theyre going to talk to their friends about who should be sent home from Top Chef and who should stay. Theyre going to obsess over our house ipper Jeff Lewis lips or fall in love with Zoila his housekeeper. Theyre going to be highly engaged. Theyre going to vote and interact in unprecedented numbers with their cell phones and their remotes. Theyre going to visit us online, theyre going to widget us, Facebook us, and Twitter about us. If youre AmEx, you want people who are going to connect with your brand and you have other means to do so. You have made generations of star brand advocates come alive through the pages and on-air spots of your advertising. You make Ellen DeGeneres or Martin Scorsese or a host of others seem a little bit more like us, like me with my classic Green Card. Friends who go out to dinner wonder whether their Platinum card will be matched by their friends, or whether the ante will be upped by that piece of Black or Titanium poking out of a smooth leather wallet. You have a system that is really unlike any otheryou cant just sign up for what you have to offer. You have to earn it. Literally. Sure, its a niche were going after, but to paraphrase Walt Whitman, Bravo contains multitudes. Our target audience, which we call the Afuencers, are themselves comprised of several mini-nichesthe Will & Graces, the PTA trend-setters, the Metro-competitors, and the On-the-Goes. Its a substantial and diverse audience that all share a passion for what Bravo does all within a very targeted core. Most educated, most afuent, most inuential. Niche has risks, too. If you get the messaging wrong, you may discover your audience has moved on and passed you by. That youve bored them. That youve

555
remained a little too elusive and exclusive. That someone just plain outspent you for your customers attention. But, for the most part, obviously you deliver on the promises youve made. Both of our brands are offering prestige. Were both offering individuals the opportunity for more condent, accomplished lives Bravo by the type of programming and entertainment experiences we provide, and American Express through your nancial products and travel services through a brand environment that has enormous power. So you have to know your audience. And you have to listen to them. But let me stress: listening to them doesnt mean doing what they say, it means hearing what they say and combining it with your goals, and architecting a plan to stay on course to achieve results. We do a lot of work with focus groups. We listen intensely to their feedback. But if we did what they said it would be a disaster. Ill give you one example: Our focus groups for different shows often revolve around our characters who are doing incredibly creative things, sometimes just living their lives from the outside in. From Jeff Lewis in Flipping Out, to the women of The Real Housewives, to Top Chef, we hear over and over: So and so is so mean ... I just cant stand him I cant believe this is happening. So we listen and we denitely hear but instead of hearing just the negatives and changing our casting or our storylines, we listen for an audience that is deeply fascinated by a personality. So fascinated they couldnt stop watching, and they couldnt stop talking about it afterwards. Instead of taking that particular character off the show or killing an uncomfortable storyline, we make sure theres a good balance between a tough character and the kinder, more relatable personalities of some of the other cast members. We ground everything we do in reality, and in the complex creativity of everyday life. People you love to lovegreat. People you love to hatethats where the fascination and chatter enters in. But we make sure to stay away from the hate to hate, which is a true turn-off, and, though it works in plenty of other places, is just not Bravo. To try to bring it home for youthough I am not you, so Im just guessing. If your focus groups said I want to be able to sign up for a Titanium card, and if I have enough money to pay the fee, I deserve one. I feel left out. That might be truebut that negative response might be exactly what keeps that American Express customer motivated, moving up the ladder from Green to Gold to Platinum, in the hopes theyll get that magic call one day with the offer that money alone just cant buy. So know who your customer is, and listen to them but not too much. And third, innovate. Innovate. Change. Iterate. Question. Ask. Innovation is so important for brands like Bravo and American Express because our core consumers are
december 2008

556
themselves innovating and growing. They dont stay still. They travel, they experience new things, they buy new things. Theyre trying to move through life ahead of the pack. And they expect new experiences from their entertainment options, and likely from their nancial services company. In our world as in yours, innovation often means leading the transition from analog to digital. Whether this means paying bills online or booking your entire vacation online, or texting to pick the winner of Top Chef. One challenge for all of us is how to pick the big bets. If youre like me, you work with a bunch of creative people who come up with new ideas all the time. The toughest job for any executive is to pick which ideas to pursue and which to set aside. Sometimes, they all t the brand vision. I nd it funny to hear people describe me as a risktaker, constantly challenging the status quo. The fact is, I am extremely risk-adverse. I am not willing to fail, which is a characteristic of a risk taker. On the other hand, Im decisive, Im opinionated, Im bold. What Ive found is that anything new, anything that qualies as a change, is immediately categorized as a risk. A new idea, a new product, a new person. Thats not inherently risky. But its essential to make the right choice of which new idea or which new person. But if weve done our homework, we know were fullling a need, a strategic goal, I am willing to make that choice. The other thing I hear a lot is surprise that Ive been able to do so much within the connes of a corporate monolith like NBC Universal, not to mention GE. People assume that being part of a large organization means being bound and gagged by layers of red tape and bureaucracy. Heres my take on that. This can be true if you havent taken the time to learn the rules of the organization. But once you know where the guardrails are, you can move quite quickly without being worried about the danger of running off the road. You might bump into them, but a glancing blow will direct you back on the right path. What you dont want is to hit the guardrail so hard that you bust right through it and do a crash and burn. Those guardrails, over time, if you do right by the corporation and it right by you, should feel like a safety net more than anything else. So, I dont advocate taking risks; I do advocate making decisions. And on that path, here is some simple advice that is overlooked with frequency. Do the things that are easier, not harder. Do the things that make more money, not less. Of course, thats an oversimplication, but honestly, if you get the simple yeses and nos out of the way, youll nd that your to-do list is a lot shorter. Then you can commit some better time and energy to proposals where either you know you can do it but dont know what the
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

payoff will be, or you know it will make money but you dont know how hard it will be to accomplish. Digital opportunities often fall in this area. Because youre doing something brand new. This was the case with a new business we developed at Bravo when we decided to allow audiences to vote on our competition shows. It took a lot of resources to develop this and make it happen. We are not a technology company, but we knew how much our customers loved to talk to us, and in fact, how much they specically want to have a voice in telling us who should go and who should stay. So we were pretty condent about the returns. We didnt overpromise before the initiative was ready, and the fact is we now have a new, high-margin business with huge growth potential that didnt even exist two years ago. When we rst launched the viewer vote initiative, we attached a sponsor to it. It was a lot of messaging during an already stimulating show in a highly packaged environment. So we went to test whether all this demand for viewers attention was sensory overload, not entertainment. But we got precisely the opposite feedback. When youre programming to a smart, committed audience30% of the people who watch Bravo describe it as their favorite channelit isnt sensory overload, its a trusted friend delivering cool new advice about a product. Advertisers who commit to this particular kind of partnership, virtually any cross-platform messaging in addition to the traditional :30 second spot, have brand opinion lift and brand recall stats that are literally at the top of the charts. When upwards of 70% of consumers are engaged in your programming, they recall ads and think more highly about them, when they can talk about detailed attributes of hair care products or hybrid SUV features or, yes, nancial service company travel benets as if your agency account leader wrote the copy themselves, that is clearly not a risk that was taken. It was a decision we made based on a set of choices of what path to take to keep our customers satised. Pure and simple. With the right grounding, we chose the path of least resistance, highest return, called it innovation, because it was, and people came. We did it for our consumers and our advertising partners, and thus got an organic benet that is quantiable and replicatable. In summary Im sure Ive told you what I hope you know already. Your brand promise is a great guide. Its your path to innovation and success. Your brand is what connects your business to your customers. Its built up over time and sustained by careful, painstaking work. It demands your loyalty, which means knowing your customer, caring for them, and backing up the buzz with a product that delivers on

anne-iMelda M. radice
its promises of prestige and personal growth. Be loyal to your brand and its promises. And, when push comes to shove, as it did for me on the phone call

557
I mentioned earlier, your customers will be loyal to you, even through the tough times. Thank you very much.

Working Together
OVERCOMING CULTURAL FEAR AND DIFFERENCES
Address by ANNE-IMELDA M. RADICE, Director of the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services Delivered to Picturing America symposium at UNESCO, Paris, France, September 30, 2008

mbassador Oliver, Chairman Cole, Dignitaries and Friends. We have just heard about a program that I would venture to say will become a gold standard example of what should and can be done in the realm of cultural diplomacy. It demonstrates the highest quality of scholarship and presentation. To my mind, it stands on its own in that it does not have a special context. It shows different art historical and historical periods of American creativity. The examples used often depict periods of American History which were challenging and not shining. It is the work of honest chroniclers who tell a story based on art. Its educational and aesthetic appeal for an international audience. Why is that important? Allow me to try to answer with some reections as a person who has observed and participated very modestly in the cultural scene. As a practitioner and not an expert, I feel these observations have some value within the international general publicthe audience that we all seek when we try to create bilateral and multilateral alliances. In the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I was at the U.S. Information Agency at the end of the 1980s. Among my responsibilities was Artistic Ambassadors, which some of you will, no doubt, remember with a smile. Literature about cultural policy in the international arena is varied. But I would recommend, if you are so inclined, reading Richard Ardts book, The First Resort of Kings observations and publications by Dr. Cynthia Schneider of Georgetown, and any and all government reports about various cultural commissions and recommendations. American cultural diplomacyand you hear, I am avoidng a denition for nowdates back to the Founders. James Madison said in Paris on Sept 20, 1785, You see I am an enthusiast on the subject of the arts. But it is an enthusiasm of which I am not ashamed, as its object is to improve the taste of my countrymen, to increase their reputation, to reconcile to them the respect of the world, and procure them its praise. This is all rather straightforward. At its heart,

however, is an emphasis that successanother subjective termis based on two-way activity.that the citizens of the U.S. benetthat we have something to learn. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were other practitioners of this form of statecraft. Modern cultural diplomacy began as an international partnership to battle the horrors of the Axis. This was the time of the birth of the British Council and the strengthening of the French Ministry of Culture. I think we would all recognize that cultural diplomacy at this stage was primarily a means for providing information positive propaganda to battle what was a growing threat to the world, Nazism. Words are often parsed in the annals of American Cultural diplomacy. A signicant part of recorded history involves functions of various entities and the juxtaposition of terms like education, aesthetics, information vs. culture and propaganda. The frequent challenges and eventual disbanding of USIA was, in part, based on this battle of nomenclature and which groups within the governmental structure could get the objectivesanother laden termaccomplished. With President Roosevelt came a public attempt to have a bi-partisan cultural diplomacy and the appointment of Nelson Rockefeller as a cultural representative reaching out to Latin and South America. Rockefeller often clashed with other government ofcials concerned with foreign cultural interests because he unabashedly tied commercial interests with cultural exchanges. He was brave, however, and when needed, privately funded exhibitions of modern art. As America moved into the 1950s and the horrendous McCarthy debacle, such entrepreneurial ventures became shining moments. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency had a well-known role in cultural diplomacy, publishing and disseminating materials for use abroad. It was also during this time that a former general named Dwight Eisenhower established a very important international component at Columbia University as its presidentan approach he would take with him to the
december 2008

558
White House. And we have the birth of the acronyms bureaus, departments, agencies, commissions, study groups, etc. All are dened by initials too staggering in number to list here. In the push-pull of program continuation, adversity, fear of wars and lack of position are challenges that have always inspired our government to spend more time, expertise, and funds abroad telling the American story and strengthening relationships. When such challenges have retreated so has our unilateral engagement. We also have a government structure without a centralized cultural operation or a minister of culture. Our cultural contributions are scattered throughout some excellent agencies including The National Endowment for the Humanities, The Institute of Museum and Library Services, The National Endowment for the Arts, The National Archives, The Library of Congress, The Smithsonian Museums, and work at The State Department. There have been coordinated international efforts with particular broad goals, such as the teaching of English and even formal agreements with our British friends about what kind of English should be taught worldwide (American informal vs. British formal). With that said, the sharing of the American Cultural identity and ideals has often been directly related to the ingenuity of individual attaches and non-governmental participantsthose involved in exchanges, formally and informally. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a conscious effort to recruit experts and often young scholars. Those were heady times with the likes of a David McCullough or a Paul and Julia Child representing American Culture in far ung outposts. It was also beginning of the Fulbright Exchange Programa program the late Senator Fulbright insisted had to remain bi-partisan. How many positive human experiences have resulted from this important program? Wonderfully, too many to count. When I sought advice about what I should say today I had an extraordinary conversation with the Deputy Librarian of Congress Deanna Marcum. As I left her ofce she entrusted me with a small piece of the Berlin Wall. She encouraged me to use it as a muse and to even bring here today. We all remember that day. We remember what led up to it, beginning with President John F . Kennedys declaration Ich Bin Ein Berlinerto my mind a fantastic declaration of identication with others from a different culturethat we understood each other as members of the same humanity. We remember the challenge of President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

Neither speech would have been possible without the work of the cultural representatives and organized programs abroadone of those premier programs being the sharing of American Jazz world wide. Today, I hold a very small piece of that wall in my hand. How unthinkable that would have been those short decades ago encased in plastic almost like a religious relic hatred broken down one little piece at a time. We must continue to let artists and the arts represent us. Creativity, as Wilhelmina Holladay, founder of the NMWA, recently told me is our only salvation. It unites not divides. It captures our hearts and souls. U.S. diplomacy has had many moments like thatwe witness one today. Without getting bogged down in the rhetoric of ofcial statements and agency acronyms and the life-anddeath cycles of government programs, let us recognize what makes cultural diplomacy work. First Let us recognize that the most far reaching cultural diplomacy should simply be the sharing of cultural experiences, artistic work and goodwill that ows both ways across borders. We do not have to sacrice cultural and national identities to understand and enjoy and respect other cultures. Second Let us speak of quality. We should not engage in trying to give only quantitative values for why we need to have cultural diplomacy. We should not have to use ofcial reports that use phrases like, combat the forces of darkness. Yes, there is a public document that uses this phrase to justify sending a music group abroad. Third We must always recognize that one person can make a difference. I would suspect that Louis Armstrong did more for the American image, if you will, with one song and one smile thanwell, you ll in the blanks. Fourth We must continue to identify with people, not regimes, and not punish people through ignorance because of unfortunate government structures under which they may live. As Thomas Jefferson said, we must show a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. That kind of respect is evident here with Picturing America. It is easy for me to hold this piece of the Berlin Wall in my hand. It is tiny but powerful. It represents millions of blows against a hard surface, a worldchanging event etched into our consciousness through lm footage and photography. Today, technology produces billions of instant reactions, instant imagesusually without context or exchanges on a human levelso now we have a new wall that is more insidious because it wraps around people as well as divides them. Ignorance of others, fear of cultural difference, lack

VSOTD.COM

alex M. aZar II
of mutual respect are some of the nearly invisible bers. However, I continue to hope and we all continue to work as individuals to try. We must reach through this wall and continue to share culturesone on one. We can see each other through this walland perhaps we need to have faith in the humanity that stands across from us: different, but

559
maybe not really different at all. So today we celebrate what we hope can be a step forward in creating a new era of respectthe kind Thomas Jefferson referenced. Again congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, for clarity of vision and quality that stands alone. Thank you, Madame Ambassador, for your leadership and humanity.

Generic Medicines
THE GIFT OF INNOVATION
Address by ALEX M. AZAR II, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications, Eli Lilly and Company Delivered to the Annual Mentor Dinner, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, October 14, 2008

hank you. Its an honor to speak to this distinguished gathering of the Harris School of Public Policy Studies. To the students here this evening, your chosen eld of study could not be more timely. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming elections, our leaders will need to craft thoughtful policies to mitigate a range of very serious problems. I have seen the value of well-developed, wellimplemented public policy from both sides in government and in the private sector. I am grateful for the commitment youve made to a rigorous academic program in public policy, and for your mentors generous contribution of time and expertise to your success and the success of this program. As a fellow policy wonk, Id like to discuss with you a policy challenge thats very dear to my heart, and vital to all of us the health and health care of Americans. The signs are all around us that health care is headed for decisive change, and we all have an important stake in the overall direction of our nations health care system. Although the economic crisis has overshadowed every other issue in the presidential campaign, health care remains a key concern of voters. All the trends that have been driving health care toward a crisis are still headed in the same direction. Health care costs have perhaps moderated a bit, but they are still increasing faster than ination and are still on track to consume 20 percent of U.S. G.D.P. by 2015. The number of uninsured in the United States is nearly 46 million, according to the latest Census report. I want to focus on one critically important aspect of health care reform: How do we balance short-term cost savings with long-term health? Let me share with you my perspective. As Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, I oversaw all HHS programs and operations, including Medicare, Medicaid, regulation of food and drugs, medical research,

and public health. In my role at HHS, I often met with my counterparts in the health ministries of other countries, and I found that my position was unique. Like the others, I was responsible for the nancing and delivery of health care. But my portfolio also included innovation most notably, oversight of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Unlike my colleagues, I had to balance the goals of reducing costs and sustaining innovation. This broader perspective also helped me appreciate the potential for innovation to reduce costs, improve quality, and allay suffering. As we struggle with the challenges of health care, a narrow focus on costs to the exclusion of innovation would be self-defeating. Pharmaceuticals provide some striking examples of how innovation can help us break out of the box were in: The power of new cardiovascular medications in the past 30 years to prevent or delay heart disease already has eliminated the need for tens of thousands of costly surgeries and hospitalizations. Other medicines have kept thousands of patients with mental illnesses from facing institutional connement both medical and correctional for months or years, often at government expense. Over the last 40 years, the use of medicines has cut in half the number of hospital admissions for 12 major diseases, and in the last 30 years, new treatments have cut the death rate from heart disease by 50 percent. Im all for greater efciency in health care and theres plenty of room for improvement but efciency alone isnt going to bridge the yawning gap between our health care demands and budgets. Instead, were left with a zero-sum game of rationing unless we pursue innovation that changes the whole equation. Tonight I want to discuss the balance and interplay of cost control and innovation in health care, and Ill do so in terms of a concrete example the promotion of
december 2008

560
generic drugs. Wider use of generic drugs has been one of the few bright spots in health care spending over the past several years. The health care proposals of both presidential candidates include promoting increased use of generics, as well as creating a path for generic-like versions of medicines developed through biotechnology. Generic drugs can have a signicant impact on health care spending but theres an upper limit on that impact. Prescription drugs account for only 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S., and this share has remained fairly consistent over time. Consumers perceptions, however, are quite different. One reason is that typical health coverage in the U.S. requires consumers to pay a bigger part of their drug costs than they pay for other medical treatment. As a result, market research shows that consumers overestimate drugs share of health care costs. In fact, three-fourths of consumers think that drugs account for 40 percent or more of health care spending four times their actual share. That makes pharmaceutical companies an attractive target in the health care debate. But if generic drugs are the golden egg, pharmaceutical innovation is the goose and this innovation can have a powerful impact on long-term health care costs and quality. So the way we promote generic use is crucial, because the wrong way could stie that innovation. The story of generic drugs goes back to a bill passed by Congress in 1984. But to make sense of that story, we rst need to know about how new drugs are developed and how our system promotes development of innovative medicines. Every important new medicine that has been commercialized in our lifetimes including the examples I cited earlier depended on the research and development of private-sector pharmaceutical companies. Such discoveries often draw on basic science developed by NIH and other governmentbacked researchers. But private pharmaceutical companies provide the investment in applied science necessary to translate basic research into medicines that can benet patients. In 2007, U.S. biopharmaceutical companies invested nearly $59 billion in R&D, more than twice the total NIH operating budget. Pharma companies invest an average of over $1 billion to bring just one new drug to market. I have seen both sides of this process. NIH was part of my portfolio in the government, and today I work for a company focused on developing new rst-in-class or best-in-class pharmaceuticals. For the system to work, the private pharmaceutical sector has to be able to nance and recoup an enormous investment in a very risky venture. Heres how it works: Pharmaceutical research actually creates two
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

innovation assets: a unique, patentable molecule, and a clinical data package that comprises the body of knowledge about the new molecule. After FDA approval, the company has a new medicine that, if all goes well, it can market without competition for 12 years or so although that window of opportunity has been shrinking. This is the critical period when the company can earn a return on its investment. Then, when the patent expires, generic versions can come in and take up to 6080 percent market share in as little as a few months. Before 1984, there were essentially no generic medicines in the U.S. Innovative medicines were protected in the market by an insurmountable barrier to entry even after the patent expired. That barrier was the huge investment in clinical trials that potential competitors would have to make, to put together the data package necessary for FDA approval of their new products. The Hatch-Waxman Act officially the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 was intended to promote generics while maintaining financial incentives for drug innovation. Basically, Congress brokered a deal between innovative pharmaceutical companies and the incipient generics business. On the one hand, Hatch-Waxman created the opportunity for generics to win FDA marketing approval by submitting so-called bioequivalence studies showing that their product was the same as the FDAapproved drug in lieu of prohibitively expensive clinical trials. On the other hand, the Hatch-Waxman law provides for restoration of up to ve years of patent term if doing so does not extend the patent term beyond 14 years from the date of FDA approval. Its important to note that Hatch-Waxman only allows half of the time expended on human clinical trials to be eligible for patent term restoration and does not apply to any pre-human clinical trial activities which today take over four years on average. So while Hatch-Waxman makes up some of the time when the patent clock is ticking during the FDA process, it does not restore all of the patent term lost in the lengthy, 1015 year drugdevelopment and approval process. Fast-forward to today. Nearly a quarter-century after Hatch-Waxman became law, the United States leads the world in development of new medicines. The biopharmaceutical sector is a prime example of the knowledge-based industries that will drive prosperity and growth in this century. More than 500,000 Americans work in the biopharmaceutical industry, earning on average $72,000 a year with another 2 million Americans jobs dependent on the sector. At the same time, Americans can get access within

alex M. aZar II
a fairly well-dened time period to low-priced generic versions of innovative medicines developed in the United States. Its estimated that generics will account for more than two-thirds of all prescriptions written in the U.S. this year, and the price of generics, on average, is around 70 percent lower than that of branded drugs. A study by Express Scripts found that just the increase in generic use last year saved $5.2 billion for the 160 million commercially insured Americans. As a matter of fact, all the medicines that I use are generics. In Europe, by way of contrast, governments set pharmaceutical prices that often underpay for innovative medicines and overpay for generics. In fact, generic prices are generally lower in the United States than in Europe, where price controls often have the effect of enforcing higher prices on generics and inhibit the entry of unbranded competitors. This is an issue I discussed many times with my colleagues. In addition, the evidence suggests that price controls have stied pharmaceutical innovation in other countries. Europe used to account for 65 percent of the worlds pharmaceutical innovation back in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, it has dwindled to less than 40 percent. The balance has shifted to the United States, contributing to the employment and income I cited a moment ago. Policy matters. But we are facing problems in the U.S., too, and these problems threaten the viability of pharmaceutical innovation in this country. Low-price generic drugs that meet critical medical needs will never be available unless innovative medicines are created in the rst place. The rst issue is a shift in balancing the benets and risks of any particular new medicine. As a result of a growing focus on risk, the FDA is imposing more and more requirements for clinical information both before and after the approval and launch of a new drug. Safety is, of course, a paramount concern, and we can debate whether the FDA is striking the proper balance between benet and risk. But there is no doubt that these requirements are driving up the cost of innovation, dragging out the drug development process, increasing the chances that a new drug will never get to market, and decreasing the effective patent life of products. As the costs continue to increase, only about one in three new medicines that do reach the market generate enough revenue during their lifetimes to cover the average cost of R&D let alone secure an appropriate rate of return for shareholders. Another indication of the challenges facing pharmaceutical innovation is that just 19 new medicines were approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration. To put that in perspective, its the lowest number of new approvals in any year since 1983 a quarter-century ago when aggregate R&D spending in our industry was one-tenth of what it is today.

561
At the same time, pharmaceutical companies are dealing with the loss of patent protection for key products. In fact, $150 billion in annual sales of branded medicines will go generic over the next ve years. To put this in concrete terms: since pharmaceutical companies typically invest about 18 percent of revenue in R&D, then this decreased funding for innovation represents the potential loss of as many as 27 new drugs each year at a time when the FDA is approving only 19! I fear the consequences for human health in the decades ahead as this decreased R&D funding comes home to roost in fewer innovative therapies. This is the context in which policy makers are considering possible changes to the current patent regime. As policy makers address the issues in our intellectual property framework, they face a dilemma: How do we strike the balance between making low-price generic medicines available today and sustaining robust pharmaceutical innovation for tomorrow? Lets take a look at the issues: First, delays in the FDA approval process mean that, by the time a patented molecule gets to market, there is less and less time and ability to recoup the R&D investment. We must nd a way to provide a predictable period of market exclusivity after approval. A second problem created by the current patent regime is that it creates disincentives for companies to develop new indications for a medicine thats going off patent. Remember that the FDA approves a medicine only for specic uses, or indications. Gaining FDA approval for additional indications requires additional costly clinical trials. We do, in fact, routinely pursue new indications for products already on the market. But there comes a point in the patent life of a product when such clinical research is no longer economically feasible. And there is no incentive for generic producers to do this research. Some medical scientists have theorized, for example, that the statins may have a role to play in ghting Alzheimers disease. Obviously, this could have tremendous benet for millions of people. But generic statins cost a few dollars a month and have no market exclusivity. Who could nance the extensive clinical trials necessary to test this potential new indication? Earlier, I said that pharmaceutical research creates two assets: the molecule and the clinical data package necessary for approval. Theres actually a third asset the whole body of information about the use of the product and that asset grows in value every year the product is on the market. The total value of many medicines actually grows over time as we add to this body of information. The pharmaceutical company that initially gains FDA approval for a new drug is responsible for maintaining such information in particular, on
december 2008

562
any adverse events associated with the molecule even when it is produced by generic companies. But no pharmaceutical company can afford to test new indications for a drug that is already generic or will be soon, regardless of whatever promising signals may be arising from late stage post-marketing surveillance. We need a regime in which the decision to invest in and develop new molecules or indications is made by scientists and doctors rather than patent lawyers. A third issue is how to create a regime for streamlined approval of generic-like biological compounds so-called follow-on biologics or biosimilars. How this plays out will be a major test of whether innovation can be sustained. Biologics are proteins big and often very complex molecules. Sometimes they are naturally occurring molecules, but that doesnt mean that theyre easy to discover or to produce. Quite the contrary: Biotech products are often notoriously difcult and sometimes today even impossible to characterize and to replicate as opposed to traditional small-molecule chemical compounds. In fact, the old adage is that biologics are not a product but a process. Biologics are hard to manufacture, and it is difcult to determine whether copy versions are as effective and the potential harm to patients from even slight variations can be signicant. So its vital that any new federal legislation includes rigorous, science-based validation requirements before biosimilar products are approved. And its just as important, from an innovation standpoint, to preserve incentives for the original developers of biotech products. So, what should we do? We need to nd a way to promote access to generics and follow-on-biologics while maintaining the ability to innovate. The best solution, in my view, is to provide intellectual property protection to that second innovation asset the clinical data package for the molecule. We should create a mechanism that guarantees data package exclusivity. This means that, for a xed period of time after FDA approval, a competitor cannot gain approval to market a copied version of a new medicine without independently repeating the R&D needed to establish that the medicine was safe and effective. Once the data package exclusivity period ends, the copied version of the new medicine can get approval with evidence that it is sufciently bioequivalent to the original. Such a regime has already been implemented in Europe, both for patented small molecules, which are developed through chemistry, and for biologics, or large molecules developed through biotech. We believe in order to protect the massive investment in R&D for new medicines the effective exclusivity period should be somewhere between 15 and 20 years. This is the length of time needed to assure that the
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

revenue stream from selling a new medicine will be sufcient to pay back its R&D cost, to fund additional research to dene its fullest and best uses for treating patients, and to avoid the current mess of patent litigation that results when the data exclusivity period ends before the key patents on the medicine have expired. Congress is now crafting a law that will dene the terms under which copied versions of biologics can get approved for marketing without repeating the work done by the innovator to get the original version approved. Two bills have been proposed that would provide at least 14 years of data exclusivity for biologics. As you will recall, 14 years is the maximum patent term available under the Hatch-Waxman Act. An adequate data package exclusivity will enable innovators to develop the best biologics, not just the biologics with the best patents because a great patent does not necessarily make for a great product for patients.. This approach would provide certainty to potential innovators, and thus promote innovation, while creating a denite timeline for introduction of follow-on biologics one that would coincide with the expiration of any signicant patents that cover the medicine and I believe that the same principle can be applied to generic versions of small-molecule medicines. In other words, it would balance the goals of innovation and cost containment the holy grail I set out to nd at the beginning of my remarks. Let me make one last point on the value of pharmaceutical innovation: In 2005, a Columbia University economist Frank Lichtenberg published a massive analysis of disease data and death rates from 52 countries rich and poor and correlated this information with data on the availability of new medicines. He controlled for income, education, and other factors. And what he found was that new drug launches account for 40 percent of the increase in life expectancy. In other words: for every year that life expectancy has increased ve months can be attributed to new medicines. If were going to get beyond todays health-care crisis with its enormous human and nancial burdens then it will depend on continued innovation in pharmaceuticals and across medicine. We have to stop thinking of the health care crisis in terms of a zero-sum cost game in which generics are good and expensive new medicines are bad. Each has a role, and we must strike the right balance. If we get it wrong by focusing too much on the costs and risks of new medicines, the results of lost innovation wont be immediately apparent, but they will be very real. Which of those medicines that wont be developed could have treated Alzheimers disease or Multiple Sclerosis or cancer? And how do you put a price on that? Without innovation, we dont get the benets to health and we

beverly K. eaKMan
dont get generics or biosimilars either! Generic medicines are a great legacy of innovative pharma companies. Long after patents expire and weve recouped our investment in a discovery, generic versions

563
continue to help patients worldwide. Thoughtful reform of intellectual property protection for pharmaceuticals can help ensure that we will continue to benet from this legacy.

Speech of the Month

Educations Role
PRELUDE TO MOLDING PUBLIC OPINION
Address by BEVERLY K. EAKMAN, author, columnist and lecturer Delivered to the 9th Annual Freedom 21 Conference, Dallas, Texas, July 26, 2008 hank you for that gracious introduction. And Id like to extend my thanks to the previous speaker, who has graciously agreed to aid the terminally clumsy with what Im sure you will nd to be some shocking slides. I want to be sure that you can see particular segments on each zoomed-in. But I want to give you a little background rst on how Washington works nowadays, to help you comprehend more fully what you are going to see. Having labored side-by-side with experts for the feds some 13 years, I discovered that people outside the Nations Capital have the most extraordinary notion that government is about morality: about good versus evil. But career bureaucrats view their function quite differently. To them, government is about order versus chaos; stability versus anarchy. Evil would be someone who doesnt return his Form B. As a civil servant, I learned three lessons about government; that It takes longer to do things quickly; Its more expensive to do things cheaply; and Its more democratic to do things covertly. The Washington Times recently published an opinion piece by Gary Andres agonizing over election survey statistics. He opined that several old conservative standbys seemed to be leaning Democrat, while one of the liberal constituencies, with the proper incentive, might be induced to vote Republican. He capped off his musings by asking where all the conservatives had gone. Well, after I picked myself off the floor laughing I wrote an acerbic response, which the Times actually printed: Oh, for crying out loud! I wrote. Look, Jane, look! See our schools turn out little socialists year after year. Watch them compete for pet liberal causes. Observe the National Education Association, its state chapters and spin-offs, lobbying for decades while illegally retaining a tax-exempt status. Watch patriotism, the Bible and ROTC spin down the

proverbial toilet. See how the school curriculum is watered down along with the tests. Notice how steeped they are in psychological queries. Read the new school codes, like Michigans, which species that only those who have earned doctorates in psychologyare qualied to interpret tests. Say what? If the tests werent covert mental health surveys, would such a caveat be necessary? So now, a liberal education establishment can assess and predict just how much of its leftist message, embedded in curriculum, will be sopped up by the pupils. Great! Yes, the Times printed that! Most hot-button topics of the dayfrom global warming to globalizationare rst tested in the educational marketplace by psychologists using predictive computer technologies. Disinformation is thriving in the nations classrooms. Today, I will present proof-positive that schools were used as the prototype for data-mining throughout the entire U.S. population. I will show you how government helps ensureand enforce the radical changes of ideals and attitudes and thus bring about a universal code of thought that others, including myself in past years, have alluded to. I am going to show you how unique ID numbers are assigned to each child, ostensibly by the state, but under the auspices of a federal mandate; how each state pretends to craft its own ID procedures, then transmits to the federal government for cross-matching with other federal data. You are going to see hard evidence that educrats, who are not even supposed to mention religion, are applying nitty-gritty labels like Nazarene and Calvinist to schoolchildren, then categorizing any rm religious belief as mental illness. You will see documentation of secret videotapes showing in approved day care/pre-school settings which apparently is why government is so hot to get every kid into a state-approved early childhood program. You will also see that data is collected from mothers records, beginning in their pregnancies.
december 2008

564
A story in Education Week, which is the professional newspaper of the education establishment, recently applauded the fact that Indiana high-schoolers had pitched in to campaign for Barack Obama during the primaries. Folks, we lost our conservative base way before the 2008 caucuses. We lost it in the schools. Oh, the media, the pop culture, activist judges and inuential leftist advocates like the ACLU have all taken a shot at us. But when you follow left-leaning career journalists, actors, screen writers, judges and attorneys back and back, you nd one common thread: Behold! They all went to school! Maybe it was a private school or a parochial school. More likely: a public school. But even the strict, traditionalist academy I attended in Washington, DC, back in the 1950s, has adopted the teachings of the radical left. The strait-laced private schools of yore now teach global warming as fact, not theory; advocate for world government and evolving interpretations of the Constitution; promote sexual diversity and undercut national sovereignty. Religion is portrayed as a collection of stories for the unenlightened, all doctrines being morally equivalent, from Christianity to Islam, Wicca and Kwanza. The reason education reform policies fail is that career civil servants stay on through umpteen administrations. They are not paid to care if their bosss policy is wrong. Theyre paid to carry out the policy. The goals of bureaucrats and the goals of elected ofcials simply dont mesh. Bureaucracies work to increase staffs and budgets, aggressively soliciting new tasks, and jealously guarding old ones, until today we have this monstrous behemoth that is out of control. Child protection agencies, the Drug Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Transportation Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Education Department are just seven agencies infamous for bureaucratic overkill and obfuscation. Each is assigned quotas of one kind or another in order to loosen the purse strings of Congress and curry favor with special interests. Long-term ramications of policy initiatives are left to so-called bipartisan advocacy groups and think-tanks. Radicalization is in both cases due to dependency upon donationsand most of that money now resides in the far left. One of the lone conservative newspapers, the Washington Times, for example, just got a new editor-in-chief, John Solomon, from its leftwing competitor, the Washington Post. The trusty USO, the United Service Organization, made famous by Bob Hope during his Christmas tours to entertain our troops: Well, it recently caved to MoveOn.orgs devious offer of $350,000ostensibly to buy phone cards for our troops. As you know, MoveOn.org is lm producer Michael Moores brainchild, and he hates our troops, especially as they are volunteers.
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

But it doesnt stop there. Even Sen. John McCain is accepting funds from leftist icon George Soros via Soros Open Society Institute, an inuential liberal advocacy group. Why? Because donations from leftists and liberals buy legitimacy for conservative candidates. One cant survive without it. Thats the way the game is played in Washington. Today, the terms communism and fascism are depicted as pass, despite provocations from totalitarian regimes all around us. But just because the Soviet Union per se fell apart does not mean the whole leftist apparatus broke down, or even went broke. Quite the contrary. Now, its our side thats down to a handful of patriots, people who still believe in things like national sovereignty, self-determination, parental and property rights, personal integrity and other things that were givens only 50 years ago. After the upheavals of the 60s and 70s, the closet Marxists and fascists mainstreamed themselves and took over the cultureentertainment, religious institutions, nancial establishments, labor unions and, most importantly, schools. Sometimes leftists even masqueraded as supporters of conservative publications and causes, just to get their foot in the door: a wedge technique. When you read biographies of Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Herbert Marcuse, and Kurt Lewinwhich, of course, our schools never assignthis wedge technique becomes familiar. A leftist propaganda machine ends up leaving its socialist footprint, setting up an eventual police state. Venezuela and Bolivia are recent cases in point. The late columnist and author, Dr. Samuel Francis, nailed todays version of the strategy when he coined the term anarcho-tyranny. Anarcho-tyranny is a campaign of planting deliberately mixed messages, coupled with the imposition of increasingly petty restrictions and intrusive, oppressive gotcha-type mandates that curtail the everyday activities of law-abiding citizens while permitting violent criminals, roving gangs, illegal aliens and drug-runners to essentially run amokalways out on probation; always getting credit for good conduct in prison; always miraculously cured by mental-health professionals; always awash in government freebies, compliments of the U.S. taxpayerunless, of course, its a policeman or Hollywood celebrity whos the victim. Last Junes Supreme Court decision taking the death penalty off the table for child torture-rapists is typical of this sort of thinking. Eventually, the public becomes cynical; local law enforcement is demoralized. Local police become paralyzed in their attempts to carry out their proper role of public safety and, instead, resort to what Dr. Francis calls purely ctitious functions that will raise revenue, as per the headline: Washington Times - PG County takes on cluttered lawns and/or Washington Times - PG

beverly K. eaKMan
County takes on cluttered lawns (both July 2, 2008)]. This, of course, enhances the power ofbureaucrats, foster[ing] the illusion that the state is doing its job, as Dr. Francis put it. Think speed bumps; surveillance cameras; leash-laws to snag an easy $500; click-it-orticket stops; bicycle-helmet nes; ever-increasing auto inspections; complicated recycling rules; and even consent forms for youngsters to ll out (as in the State of Vermont), authorizing their own parents to peruse their library records; arbitrary, unwarranted drug tests at $300 a pop at many doctors ofces; and random strip searches by school ofcials looking for aspirin. But along the Beltway surrounding Washington, DC, where I live, every weekend, around 8 p.m. in the summers, motorcycle gangs of 15 or so terrorize other drivers by careening in and out of trafc at 120 mph. Not a single police helicopter or cruiser ever appears, even when summoned by cell phone from panicked drivers on the roadside! Such a nation becomes fertile soil for any charismatic character who promises change, or to restore order. Here we are, to quote Dr. Francis again, with hightech, whiz-bang technologies that Hitler and Mussolini would drool over, but none typically protects lawabiding Americans, who are victimized by thugs whose convictions are overturned on some unfathomable technicality, played out by attorneys who see their role as games of one-upmanship. Criminal trials take forever, cost taxpayers a fortune and generate endless appeals. Airport security checks often are conducted by agents in Moslem headdress in an era, no less, when Christian jewelry and prayers are challenged in schools, football stadiums, courthouses and other public places. Now the TSA is set to station (get this!) some 500 BDOs at airports by the end of the year.iii What are BDOs, you ask? Behavioral Detection Ofcers, all psychologists, who will monitor not just body language, but micro-expressionsnot of suspects, but of anyone in an airport security line who raises an eyebrow in a manner that can be interpreted as, quote, disgust, anger, fear or antipathy to the screening process itself. So, regardless of how provocative a TSA agent acts, the slightest detection of negativity on the part of a passenger (called an allegation of nonphysical interference) will result in a ne as high as $1,500 and loss of reservation; yet, of the some 3,000 complaints registered against TSA screeners in 2004, most for provocation, not one resulted in disciplinary measures. You may already have seen something called the Clear lane at a few airports. The pitch is that for only $128 a year, a passenger can avoid long security lines by submitting biometric ngerprint and iris data, coupled to an intensive interview. Supposedly, upon receipt of a Clear card (it looks like a credit card); one has passed the background check. But by asking the right questions

565
of the corporations representativeits a subsidiary of a corporation called Veried Identity Pass, Inc., (VIP , get it?)you discover that, after being greeted politely by a smiling Clear employee in a lane adjacent to Security, you are shuttled through the same line and rigmarole as everybody else, under the watchful eye of the not-so-polite TSA. Never mind that the company already temporarily lost a laptop clients containing condential information. Supposedly, nothing vital was stolen, but you and I know that le-copying has become increasingly sophisticated. Obviously, this scam has been approved by Homeland Security; otherwise it wouldnt be allowed in the airports. So the government is complicit in a fraudulent scheme to trick you into paying for a Stasistyle clearance check, complete with biometric data and extensive interview. All this is the stuff of anarcho-tyranny, as described by Samuel Francis. (I call it Communism in Drag.) In any case, what has evolved here in the United States is a government that exists to protect itself, along with the various political and nancial interests that toady to its whims, rather than a government that exists to protect you. Let me share a couple of remarks Josef Stalin made to his inner circle during the Terror years in Russia, 1937-39, when his hit squads worked to outdo even Hitler and his goons. Stalin said: The further we move forward [with the detainment of citizens for minor transgressions]the more embittered will the remnants of the destroyed exploiter classes become, [and] the sooner they will resort to extreme forms of struggleso we [will have an excuse to] arrest them all. Substitute the words exploiter classes with backbone of society (thats the professional, middle class) and this quote becomes chillingly relevant to us. We forget that Communism and Fascism were, and still are, a faith with its own doctrinal sins. Communism was dedicated to the systematic destruction of social classes and the isolation of dissidents and mavericks. In America today, we increasingly hear statements about leveling the playing eld and equality of outcomes. Well, this playing eld means equity, and equity equates to decimating the middle class, now in progress. The coming generation is the rst that, for the most part, will not be better off than their parents, will not be upwardly mobile. Any maverick, or independent thinker, already is viewed as a loner, a virtual dissident, and even dismissed as mentally ill. The new faith is global warming (or climate change, if you prefer), and the gravest sin is leaving a carbon footprint. Meanwhile, politicians, educators and the media leave their socialist footprinta global, Marxist-style, redistribution-ofwealth alliance from which an extravagantly wealthy
december 2008

566
elite (the Al Gores and Nancy Pelosis, people who make hundreds of millions per year, not mere millions) is somehow always exempt. In the Russian provinces, Stalin used to assign quotaspeople in need of arrest, deportation or killing, irrespective of their crime or innocence. His regional commissars, ever-anxious to please and earn promotions, would fall all over themselves to surpass each other with gigantic numbers of people arrested, sometimes citing only the look in their eye as justication, an eerie reminder of the coming BDOs at our nations airports. Stalins chief deputies later conceded this; Nikolai Yezhov commented that ifan extra thousand people are shot... that is not such a big deal. Stalin himself remarked: Better an innocent head less, than hesitation.vii We are dangerously close to this sort of rationalizing. While we arent actually killing people yet, we detain, inconvenience, humiliate and marginalize inconvenient folks without probable cause, often ruining their careers and requiring them to pony up huge legal costs to clear their names, like John & Patsy Ramsey, in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet. Or Scooter Libby, scapegoat in the trumped-up Valerie Plame non-incident concocted by Democrats. Sometimes we arrest them, too, as in the case of the two Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jos Campean, whose only crime was to temporarily injure, not kill, an illegal Mexican drug-runner with a history of bringing marijuana and other illicit drugs into our country. But the action was seen as politically incorrect, so the two were sued, then, incredibly, jailed without pardons. One has already been sexually assaulted there. Under such policies, another 9/11-style crisis will unleash a frenzy of detainmentsagainst innocent taxpayers packing mouthwash, not terrorists packing C-4. Young people entering the job marketespecially those becoming aides to legislators on Capitol Hill or in the state legislaturesare too poorly schooled to see these parallels to Marxist regimes. The lack of well-educated staffers also keeps elected ofcials from learning the full history of proposed legislation and policywhether the topic is immigration, energy or education. This makes it easier for heavily nanced agitators on the left to sabotage reform measures. Take, for example, the drugging of normal, dgety children. State governments are in complicity with their federal counterparts at the Department of Education and with pharmaceutical moguls, pressuring parents to administer cocktails of mind-altering drugs. Rep. Ron Paul tried to stop this, but got sabotaged in his efforts. Then, he was sidelined in televised debates, despite raising historical sums of grassroots funding for his presidential campaign. It doesnt matter whether you like Ron Paul or not; he still deserved to be heard. So, students continue to be druggedand showered with psychological surveys, urging them to reveal
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

intimate details about themselves and their families. In the mixed-message department, schools order honorroll grade-schoolers (as in Arizona) to drop their drawers in humiliating random searches for Motrin hidden in their underpants! It was also revealed last June how the Veterans Administration lures exhausted, returning veterans into lethal psychotropic drug-testing regimens. One hook was a stop-smoking campaign. When smoking becomes less lethal than your government, you know we are in trouble! Congress pretended to be shocked at the use of unapproved psychotropic drugs and subsequent deaths; yet that same august body already had passed the New Freedom Initiative in 2004, aimed at mandatory psychological screening on every individual in America, beginning with school children! This raises the specter of another parallel with Communism: the use of psychiatry to punishpunitive psychiatry. One brave lady, Larisa Arap, earned an award for enduring, and nally escaping, such a facility in Russia a couple of years ago. Because she wouldnt go along with a petty diktat, the government had her incarcerated in one of its infamous psychiatric hospitals, where she was tortured with cocktails of psychiatric drugs that made her sick, then when she still didnt give in, shock treatments. The whole story eventually came out in some newspapers, though it was somewhat buried, which is another ominous sign. Look how psychology is being used on Americans from the classroom, to those BDOs in TSA lines, to manipulation of the news. This makes it risky indeed to be a skeptic on issues critical to government and its favored elites. We are pressured to report on parents and friends, pressured to seek counseling (or reeducation) for all kinds of things, pressured to support causes we dont believe. No wonder most freshman congressional staffers buy into Smart Growth, mass psychological screening and global warming. Even those few who suspect the truth (having examined the real technical or scientic evidence) know that to express reservations about, say, climate change or gay rights is a career-stopper. No wonder todays schools revolve around psychology and emotionalism: survival and coping skills, anger management, conict resolution, selfesteem, diversity, and, of course, personal popularity (under the cover of teamwork). Moreover, molding public opinion has become an art form. Leftist curriculum is being packaged for kidsthe harder-hitting ones going to those whose test scores show theyre not enthusiastically buying in to the preferred biases. How? One method is to use interactive, computerbased testing and remediation. Heres a new generation of targeted indoctrination, this one piloted via the

beverly K. eaKMan

567
about animalsor any kind of life, for that matter? Of course not. These are tactics of the left, re-packaged and updated for the 21st Century. What modern-day leftists do care about is the same thing they cared about in the 1930s and 40s: separating the bourgeoisie (the middle class) from its wallet, eradicating its values and inltrating traditional institutions so that persons of a leftist persuasion are recommended for all manner of staff positions. Once hired, these staffers show their bosses only the research, or constituent letters in the case of legislative aides, they think deserve attention, and to that extent inuence the policy decisions of Congress, state legislators and lobbyists. Far-left mega-organizations, like the National Education Association, pioneered hardball leftist training centers early on, via their National Training Laboratory. There, selected recruits got (and still get) an extreme makeover as Marxist ideologues. The trainees re-emerge as lobbyists, school superintendents and community leaders, all funded discreetly through second and third parties to deect attention from the real sources, like, say, George Soros Open Society Institute, or the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, or the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and on and on. Understanding these sleights-of-hand is critical if one expects to come to grips with the socialist footprint now being stamped on Americas religious, journalistic and educational institutions. Terms like best practices and public-private partnerships are codes for, in essence, bypassing citizens and states rights. Again, conservatives missed it. Virtually every federal agency, not just the Education Department, The Departments of Labor, Justice, Health and Human Services, and so on have Ofces and Bureaus devoted to education, too. Most people dont realize this. These ofces create annual booklets of grant solicitations aimed at, say, prevention. The Justice Department, where I worked, has the Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This Ofce disseminates booklets every yearholding out the prize of federal dollars to any organization that will create a course or a strategy aimed at, say, teen pregnancy, or pollution, or drug abuse. Well, guess what: No proposal has been seriously considered for at least 15 years that isnt imbued with a mental health perspective. Not a law enforcement perspective, not a religious perspective, not a parental perspective, or even a scientic perspective, but a psychology perspective (mental health, remember?)a eld overrun, unfortunately, with leftists and get-richquick psychopharmacologists. Well, what kind of entities do you think win prevention grants, then? Left-leaning colleges and
december 2008

science curriculum so that parents holding actual degrees in disciplines like physics or chemistry wont interfere in politically charged topics such as global warming. This document from the federally funded Council of Chief State School Ofcers Task Force shows parental views being deliberately pitted against school disinformation campaigns. But this tactic was on the drawing board back in 1984, when Dustin Heuston of the World Institute for Computer-Assisted Technology declared: Weve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were 10 of the top psychologists working with one student. Wont it be wonderful whenno one can get between that child and that curriculum? Conservatives missed it! Also missed was the fact that leftists dont really care about the issues they plea so passionatelysingle mothers, polar bears, world hunger, American jobs, fossil fuels, etc. These are covers, fronts for the real agenda of power. Look at the environmental extremists who would start forest res to protest logging. Do you think they really care about trees? Or how about the extremists in the Tucson area who hired some muscle to blow up a McDonalds restaurant to protest the sale of hamburger meat? Do you think they really care

568
universities, foundations, and think-tanksthe same luminaries that have been spewing leftist claptrap for decades: the Carnegie Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, etc. All are tax-exempt, for practical purposesand loaded. They hire professional grant writers who make sure to include trendy buzz-terms like carbon footprint, unplanned pregnancy, and depression. So, over time, dozens of really bad ideas become the core around which all curricula and school activities (and even TV sitcoms) revolve. Certain values and concepts are phased out (independence, excellence, family) while others are institutionalized (interdependence, functionality, sexual partner). One day, parents wake up to a child they no longer know. Some of you are probably among them. Today, schools have a mechanism that allows the education establishment to track your childs emerging attitudes and beliefs; in other words, to ascertain just how much of the malarkey being dished out in the classroom is being absorbed by the student. If the answer is, not enough, then a childs electronic portfolio is agged. When that child starts applying to colleges, administrators see the ag and either turn down the application on some pretense, or they accept the applicant, then discourage him from a degree program that might lead to leadership and inuence. The University of Delaware is a poster college for this type of thing. A 2007 investigation by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education revealed that incoming freshmen were required to undergo [psychological] treatment by residence hall apparatchiks [known as R.A.s, for short] and forced to adopt highly specic, university-approved views ranging from politics to race, sexualityand environmentalism. Names were taken, and punitive measures assigned to those who didnt go along. Now, the University of Delaware is a state college and must admit eligible state applicants. But prestigious, private universities are under no such constraints. They can just turn down your kids based on whatever pupils have already been tricked into divulging on surveys and phony tests at the elementary and secondary levels. What kind of tricks and phony tests do I mean? I often wish I were someone else. [or] I get upset easily at home. The student checks: [a] Very true of me, [b] Mostly true of me, [c] Mostly untrue of me, [d] Very untrue of me. You are asked to dinner at the home of a classmate having a religion much different from yours. In this situation I would feel: [a] Very comfortable, [b] Comfortable, [c] Slightly uncomfortable, [d] Very uncomfortable. There is a secret club at school called the Midnight Artists. They go out late at night and paint funny sayings and pictures on buildings. I
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

would JOIN THE CLUB when I knew [a] my best friend had asked me to join; [b] most of the popular students in school were in the club; [c] my parents would ground me if they found out I joined. In the back of the room, I have some recent questionnaires from Arizona and Texas schools; you can avail yourselves of these if you like, as they are inappropriate for mixed company. But the point is that all of the questions are essentially knock-offs of marketing surveys: whatwould-you-do-if queries; confession-style probes; and psychological shing expeditions. Since 9/11, you may recognize all this by another namedata-mining. But data-mining actually started in the schools back in early 1980s, when it was called psychographics: a combination of socio-economic demographics and consumer trends. Psychographics is essentially a data-gathering strategy to sell products or services, like deciding where to place a new daycare facility or sell a new kind of cereal. In the process, however, personal and political leanings are revealed, and since everything is now computerized, it can be crossmatched, analyzed, and transmitted. Recipients of such transmissions include universities, prospective employers and government. Thanks to the federally funded Council of Chief State School Ofcers, beginning in 1976 all local, state and federal computers were required to be made compatible for information-sharing. Today, that process is complete. As a consequence, psychographics morphed into data-mining. This has facilitated psychological proling and dossier-building inside and outside the school setting. An example of this can be seen in the title of this article from the American Research Education Journal, Data-Mining Journals and Books: Using the Science of Networks to Uncover the Structure of the Educational Research Community. This professional periodical gives away the connection between data-mining and education right in the title. To that end, personal data may be clustered, as in [EXHIBITS B 3], in which friendships by gender and racetwo elds that are supposed to be serious no-nos in school questionnairesare tracked and monitored. This sort of information is aligned with data points like this [EXHIBIT B-4/5], which I had to split to t it all on here intact. Now, you need to take a hard look at this split exhibit, because it exemplies the outrageous trend of tracking private purchases of everyday items for political purposes. Supposedly, it is just a list of liberal versus conservative books purchased through Amazon, with a secondary list of books that could go into the either-or category. But how did the source, Krebs, bottom right, get this? And who analyzed it? Did it actually include more than online purchases from one outlet, such as the

beverly K. eaKMan

569
information from Amazon, matched against childrens current opinions on school surveys, can be powerful determinants of future political behavior, and technology is now to the point where I such information can follow kids from pre-school through college, on into the workplace, as per [EXHIBIT C-3].

individual friendships, clustered by race and gender in the preceding exhibit? Did it include other online book outlets? After all, there are plenty of online bookstores, and it is a fairly easy matter to access them all. The question is troubling because The National Longitudinal Study from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the Department of Education lasted from 1988-2000. The parental

This is one of those covert, whiz-bang technologies that the late Samuel Francis says Hitler and Mussolini would have drooled over. Ralph Tyler, the famous late behavioral testing pioneer, and his co-writer, Richard Wolf, put it this way: The need for deception in testing sometimes outweighs privacy considerations because there are occasions in which the test constructor [nds it necessary] to outwit the subject so that he cannot guess what information he is revealing. Thus: a backhanded admission that testing is actually proling. Another colleague, Walcott Beatty, admonished that the effort to capture noncognitive [or nonfactual] details on students lives must avoid the appearance of [being] a national initiative. In other words, a hidden agenda. Scoring is based upon knee-jerk emotions, not a thoughtful consideration of facts. The result is called a behavioral baselineretained in databases for posterity. The word test is replaced with assessment for a reasonbecause an assessment is not a test, as per these four quotes uncovered from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. While test and assessment cannot be reliably distinguished technically, the differenceis of symbolic importance. [L.A. Shepard] reserves test for traditional standardized developmental and pre-academic measures and uses the term assessment to refer to more developmentally appropriate procedures for observing and evaluating young children Assessment is the process of gathering
december 2008

570
information about children in order to make decisions about their education. Teachers obtain useful information about childrens knowledge, skills, and progress by observing, documenting, and reviewing childrens work over time Assessment is the process of observing, recording and otherwise documenting Assessment involves the multiple steps of collecting data on a childs development and learning And one more from the NCES Statistical Standards, May 2002 An assessment is any systematic procedure for obtaining information from tests and other sources that can be used to draw inferences about characteristics of people, objects, or programs. Today, hundreds of seemingly unrelated pieces of data that reveal political leanings and parental views are fed into a predictive computer algorithm. Whats a predictive computer algorithm? Well, its a mathematical formula that sifts masses of information, then predicts what a person will probably do, given various hypothetical scenarios. The idea behind computerized prediction is that we are emotional, impulsive creatures and that the rational mind can be overridden. Of course, a person can change his, or her, mind, but the information itself can be cut and pasted just like the tape of a lm on an editing-room oor. You and your child have no way of knowing what has been kept, and what has been deleted, and the legal system really is behind the curve on this. Am I saying that every persons computerized opinions are being tracked, analyzed and monitored every minute of the day, right now? No, thats not yet economically feasible, or even necessary. It all depends on who needs to know. Who needs to know? Maybe nobodyunless you (or your children, at some point) run for election, are tapped for a political appointment, offend a politically correct group, or sit on a controversial committee. The point is, predictive tracking and monitoring can be done, now, today, and information presumed to be condential means, in legal jargon, need to know, not anonymous. It can be taken out of context and disseminated any time. Once computerization became truly practical, marketing agencies started hiring statisticians with concurrent degrees in psychology. Marketing moguls have long known that the best predictor of what consumers might buy tomorrow was whatever they bought yesterdayyour purchase history. In the late 1970s, political experts realized that the same could be said for what a person believes. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Do you believe
VSOTD.COM

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

that George Washington was the rst President of this country? Do you believe that a republic is superior to a monarchy? Do you believe that someone is following you? Do you believe naughty children need drugs to control behavior? Do you believe you should take a drug if you are discouraged? See how educrats get away interconnecting mental health and academics? It all hinges on the term belief. People didnt pick up on this ploy until it was too late, and now it doesnt matter whose hands the technology is inconservatives, liberals, greens, or leftists. Were in big trouble regardless. Whether the product being sold is coffee, samesex marriage, or a candidate for public ofce, the best predictor of what you (or a voting bloc) will do in the future is whatever you did (or didnt do) in the past what you may have believed in the past, or supported in the past. Much of this can be found in computerized public recordsmagazine subscriptions, religious and political afliations, favorite charities and causes, shopping habits, hobbies, movie rentals. Now the technology has morphed again. Computers have been made so adept at cross-matching and linking information, that special interests are actually enticed to buy your datapharmaceutical companies; philanthropies; colleges; political strategists; insurance and credit companies. The August issue of Smart Money magazine describes how a new industry of information brokers has sprung up for the sole purpose of selling data culling according to a clients needs. The clients include government. Micro-targeting enables any person or entity to look for particular kinds of individuals, or even zero in on someone in particular. Schools started interspersing psychological questions within legitimate academic tests, without parents knowledge or consent beginning about 1980. Testing companies borrowed from clinical questionnaires like the Personality Assessment Inventory, Depression Adjective Checklist, Emotional Problems Scale, Defense Mechanisms Inventory, with questions like What does your urine smell like? and What do you hate most about your mother? Many questions are deliberate Catch-22s, making them more like interrogations than surveys. By canvassing for opinions and preferences, technically known as value and lifestyle data, and cross-matching public records with private oneslibrary, medical, title, health, insurance and stock and nancial records; census data; etc.analysts can micro-target a search: Thus, that left-wing/right-wing exhibit on books from Amazon I showed you. The Smart Money article described how Hillary Clintons campaign rented out mailing lists of her donors to InfoUSA, one of the nations largest information brokers, which had already paid her husband, Bill, some $3.3 million in consulting fees

beverly K. eaKMan
and raised millions more, via its CEO, for other, earlier Clinton campaigns. Yet, as NY Senator, Hillary had the gall to sponsor a personal-data-abuse bill. Washington working the way it does, she could be assured that the measure would die quickly, so it didnt matter. All this brings up covert, pre-assigned ID coding, which government agencies swear doesnt exist. So brace yourselves; this is where it starts getting really ugly, beginning with this website: STUDENT UNIQUE INDENTIFIER (NDE Uniq ID) Steps to assigning Student Unique IDs www.nde.ne.us.nssrs, updated January 2, 2008 Now, I picked a state at random, Nebraska, but it could have been just about any statewhich means, this is a national initiative, with the state serving as the fall guy. The state education agency (thats the state arm of the U.S. Dept. of Education) establishes the procedures and pretends to write its own training manuals for how to assign a unique identifying number to every student. All such procedures are written with a word or phrase changed here and there, or in a different order, and legislators and the press fall for it. In fact, all state procedures are virtually identical. Once the kids statesupplied ID number is in the bag, so to speak (in this case the Nebraska Department of Educations UniquID), the state can transmit to the feds, or anywhere else, for that matter. The interesting thing about this is the Unique Student Number, assigned by the state, and the Social Security number, assigned by the feds, are going to be cross-matchedin ways that will make your jaw drop. But so far, what does this tell you? That the scheme is a federal initiative! Why? With the Social Security Number, it has to be. There are three levels of searches: Simple, Advanced, and State ID-Search mode. Which brings us to how they nd the really difcult stuff on kids and their families the drill-down Finder method. Now, some people move or change names and, so, are harder to nd. Or some information is technically off-limits, like religious beliefs and some medical records. Computer specialists then must peel the onion to a deeper level. This is called drill-down, using a restricted electronic code (Finder) coupled to, of course, the Unique-ID. I got into the Finder le just before it was closed off. Apparently, someone at the other end realized a search was afoot via a back door of sorts, and that it wasnt their own guys. I was trying to decide which were most important and suddenly got a restricted File popup, so I started saving and printing as fast as I could. Now, there were over 700 data elements, so I had to skip most of them. I skipped down to where I saw

571
Religious Afliation, which is supposed to be off-limits for educators. I mean, they arent even supposed to put up red and green paper at Christmastime. Now, for educators, who arent even supposed to know, much less teach, the difference between, say, Calvinism, Nazarene and Pentecostal, its mighty strange that schools are supposed to label a child with one of some 29 religions. One of the entries on the site asks the number of forms used in an assessment. What does that signify? Well, it means there is more than one version of an assessmenttheyre micro-targeting, remember? That means wording the questions just right. So, how do they sort out who got what version? Can someone tell me? Thats right: Unique-ID! That proves that there are indeed 712 elements per assessment. Another insight I found is a space for the scoring vendor. All right, this is a test, folks (Im a former schoolteacher, remember, so its a hard habit to break): Who is approved to score assessments? What did I say in that Letter to the Editor? Yes, psychologists, only people with earned doctorates in psychology, are approved to score or analyze assessments! So the vendor has to hire who? Yes, behavioral psychologists. They even go so far as to have a section entitles Use of Manipulatives. Just like behavioral testing pioneer, Ralph Tyler and his colleague, said: that sometimes it is important to trick the respondent, to deceive him, so that he doesnt know how much information he is actually revealing. If you get a chance go to the Handbook of the National Center for Education Statistics at www.nces. ed.gov/programs/handbook.com. You will nd proof of the predictive algorithms I discussed earlier, the formulas that will forecast your kids probable political behaviors based on the responses he or she provides on assessments and surveys. There is also a section that carries an extra zinger by saying that the information may be used to provide supplemental services. The nature of those services include more screening and self-reporting. If these suggest emotional disturbance or depression, as described in, then counseling services, resulting in psychiatric drugs will probably be the outcome. It doesnt stop there. There is an incredibly detailed level of invasiveness, all automated, or required: every aspect of a childs teeth and dental work, pre-natal observations of the mother, such as weight gain during pregnancy, gestational age of child at birth, and birth weight. In other words, Ladies, while you were at the hospital in labor, your government was laboring to circumvent the privacy laws. This tells you how much that HIPAA privacy agreement you have to sign every time you walk into a new doctors ofce or pick up a
december 2008

572
prescription at the pharmacy is worth. Can we say zero? I also found a copyright-protected, restricted-use longitudinal data le. This was evidence of surreptitious data-gathering via an electronic codebook, going back to birth and pre-school. The focus was social skills, rated by psychologists using a Social Rating Scale. The copyright protection notice is a ploy to discourage parents, the press or legal observers from perusing the le. Now, the nal atrocity: What you see here is a fathers questionnaire, but this is typical for both parents, with penalties for refusing. [EXHIBIT J-1 thru J-6] This is why I said a minute ago that the wise parent will be sure the pre-school or early-childhood program is approved. Notice rst the OMB number on the top of this cover sheet [EXHIBIT J-1]. OMB is a federal code that stands for the Ofce of Management & Budget. Notice the bar code in the bottom right. Then look at the blank box at the top right, which asks the proctor to input a bar code there, too. What bar code would that be? Anyone? Yes, Sir: Its the Unique-ID code. The bar code at the

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

bottom is the version of the questionnaire itself, and its on every single page of the survey. Can anybody guess why? Hey! Im impressed with you guys. Yes, they are going to rip the pages apart and send them to the

VSOTD.COM

beverly K. eaKMan

573
follows day, well get parent-licensing legislation out of this scheme. In fact, its in the pipeline, via Senate Bill S.1375, called the Mothers Act, debated in Congress last spring. Harvard Medical Schools dissident psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, warns that the questionnaires slated for the Mothers Act (quote) may look scientic, but when one examines the questions asked and the scales used, they are utterly subjective measuresjust like the school questionnaires aimed at depression and other psychological issues. So, heres another bill thats fraudulent and violates informed consent, too. Suppose a parents viewpoints dont pass muster (whatever that is in 10 years). Too bad, youll be penalized for having kids! Could children be removed from homes by overzealous state child protective agencies? Well, you tell me Quotas, remember? Increasing child removals means what? Bigger budgets! So, dossiers are emerging from dozens of computers at the local, state and federal levels, all communicating with one another. Theres no need for one humungous computer, like most people imagine. Theres nothing to stop transmissions from the dozens of smaller ones talking to each other from landing on the desk of a corporate executive, college admission ofcer or FBI agent. The marriage of computerized data-collection and educational indoctrination continues to evolve, fullling the objectives of early leftists like Paul Popenoe, editor of old American Eugenics Society journaland yes, that means just what you think it meanswho wrote that the educational system should be a sieve, through which all children are passed. It is very desirable, he said, that no child escape inspection. The dots go back to education, folks. Young people have no idea how we got re-routed from the Founders original ideals. Most parents themselves couldnt tell their kids how we got herevia movers and shakers like Brock Chisholm, John Rawlings Rees, A.S. Neill, Albert Segal, Ewen Cameron, Chester Pierce, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Steckel, Kurt Lewin, Wilhelm Reich, Emma Goldman, Max Eastman, Erich Fromm, Archie LaPointe, Willard Wirtz, Antonio Gramsci, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, G. Stanley Hall, and on and on. Hardly any schoolpublic or privatecovers these inuential moguls. Yet, every one rejected traditional notions about right and wrong. Every one indicated that religious convictions are a sign of mental illness. Every one urged inspection of children and parents for signs of dogmatism, inexibility and paranoia. Why isnt everyone throwing a national hissy t? Because most people never see this stuff; they have no understanding of what it is theyre ghting! So we have a choice to make. Get in some bureaucratic faces, or just hope something will turn up.
december 2008

appropriate behavioral expert for analysis. So much for the anonymous nature of this survey! Look at these questions. These are reduced photos, so youd know I didnt make this up. But J-5 is the jaw-dropper: When did you rst hold your child? Followed by multiple choices! But to me, the biggest barf-bagger is J-6: During those approved day care settingsobviously the reason they are approvedis that someone is videotaping your interactions (see highlighted boxes) with your toddler, probably behind a fake mirror, testing your social cues, responsiveness, or perceived lack thereof. This provides government child protection agencies with an excuse to label your child with a psychiatric problem or developmental delay, as per EXHIBIT J-7and hold the threat of child removal over your head, should you ever become difcult down the road. If you recall, under the quietly passed New Freedom Initiative in 2004 (to screen the entire U.S. population for mental illness), parents were to be scrutinized right after schoolchildren. Well, hello! Its now 2008, and mandatory questionnaires from parents like the one you just saw, along with covert videotapes of parents interacting with their toddlers, signal an audacious overreach by agents of government. As sure as night

574
Ronald Reagan noted that: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and [passed] on, he said, or we will spend our sunset years telling ourchildrens children what it was like in the United States [when] men were free. Well, he got that one right. Already, we are telling

VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY

our childrens children what it was like to get on an airplane with our luggage and just sit down, to say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lords Prayer in school and not be hassled or sued, to speak our peace on political topics and not be sent to mandatory counseling. So whats nextor are were going to lose it all? Thank you.

25 Speeches That Changed Our World

s a loyal reader of Vital Speeches of the Day, you know our main objective is to publish and catalogue the greatest speeches of our times. We have been asked for years to produce a list of the most important speeches that affected our world and changed our lives. Therefore, Vital Speeches is proud to present our first interactive DVD product: 25 Speeches That Changed Our World. One of the fascinating revelations we discovered during the development of this project was how history continually tends to repeat itself. For instance, the rhetoric used by leaders in the past to justify their actions is the same used by the leaders of today. Compare, for example, the style and tone of Franklin D. Roosevelts speech after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, with George W. Bushs speech after the terrorism events of 9/11. You can see the similarity in the rhetoric and emotion of the speeches. This tells us two things about great speeches. The first is that their structure is not random: they all share a certain style and formula. Second, our triumphs and failures as human beings are captured and recorded in our speeches, which is possibly the most important lesson we can learn from them. Speeches

The Best of

That Changed Our World

25

Please go to our Web site at www.25speeches.com and decide for yourselves if these are 25 Speeches That Changed Our World.

www.25speeches.com
VSOTD.COM