View previous stories
	World leaders stress UN's Leadership Role by United Nations News   20 September 2005   Having elicited “strong, unambiguous commitments” on issues ranging from development to human rights to United Nations reform, the 2005 World Summit that ended Friday evening achieved important results despite serious gaps in such areas as nuclear non-proliferation, according to Secretary-General Kofi Annan.   In an op-ed appearing in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Annan noted that the so-called outcome document of the Summit had been described as disappointing or watered down. “This is true in part – and I said as much in my own speech to the summit,” he wrote. “But taken as a whole, the document is still a remarkable expression of world unity on a wide range of issues.”   The greatest strides were made, in agreements on the precise steps needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the ambitious plans to reduce dire poverty and other ills by 2015, he adds. In addition, he pointed to agreements on strengthening the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, creating an early warning system and a funding mechanism for natural disasters, and mobilizing funds for HIV/AIDS.   He described as “most precious” the clear acceptance by all UN members of collective responsibility to protect civilian populations against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity through the Security Council when local authorities are failing. “I first advocated this in 1998, as the inescapable lesson of our failures in Bosnia and Rwanda,” he wrote. “I am glad to see it generally accepted at last – and I hope it will be acted upon when put to the test.”   Most of his detailed proposals on UN management reform were accepted, he said, though strong executive authority for the Secretary-General was not. Similarly, there was agreement on principle toward Security Council reform but not on particulars.   There were also mixed results on terrorism and a new Human Rights Council, he noted, but in both areas it was agreed that results must be produced within the next year. For the first time, in addition, there was an unqualified condemnation of terrorism “committed by whomever, whereever and for whatever purposes.”   He said that the biggest gap by far in the agreements was the failure to address nuclear proliferation, which he called “the most alarming threat we face in the immediate future, given the danger of such weapons being acquired by terrorists.” He appealed to all leaders to make an urgent effort to find common ground on the issue. “Otherwise this summit may come to be remembered only for its failure to halt the unravelling of the non-proliferation regime – and its other real successes would then indeed be overwhelmed.”   18 September 2005   Presidents from around the globe stressed the leadership role of the United Nations in setting the international agenda, as they addressed the General Assembly this morning on the second day the General Debate of its 60th anniversary session.   “The United Nations must take on the role of a new Moses,” urged President Alfred Palacio of Equador, the first to speak this morning. In that role, he said, it must create an equitable new world order and lead migrants and other disenfranchised people to a secure future. He added that the Organization should also take the leading role in the preservation of bio-diversity, which was the “paramount goal of this third millennium.”   Nauru also looked to the UN to usher in a better world without poverty, terrorism and war, its President Ludwig Scotty said. For that reason, management reform was crucial, along with the reform of the Security Council, so that it better represented “the global family.” Much of his country’s wealth had been lost through mismanagement, he said, and so he appreciated the great importance of reforms to increase transparency and accountability.   The President of Peru, Alejandro Toledo Manrique, said that peace and security had a social and economic component. “Social exclusion is a trigger of violence and instability. It renders democracy fragile,” he said. This is why the multilateral system as a whole, with the UN in the lead, must tackle development, he added.   While each country was primarily responsible for its development, he said, each also encountered obstacles at the international level. The asymmetry that currently prevails among countries must be overcome, including unequal trade barriers, subsidies, the burden of debt, and most importantly “the absence of preferential trade conditions for developing countries.” Echoing other speakers this morning, he urged the completion of the Doha round of trade talks that focus on such issues.   While also stressing the importance of the Doha trade talks, Zambia’s President, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, focussed on the demand of the African Union for two permanent seats of the Security Council, saying “the African region, considers the reform of the organization as an opportunity to correct historical injustice that stands as a dark cloud over our people.”   Tassos Papadopoulos, President of Cyprus, agreed that Africa should take priority in current international efforts “Our endeavour to make a difference there in terms of conflict resolution, peace-keeping, peace building, poverty, underdevelopment and deadly diseases will be the litmus test of the effectiveness of our commitment to meet the Millennium Goals,” he said. At the same time, there must be appropriate facilitation of negotiations to resolve long-running conflicts elsewhere, such as in his country, which was at a critical juncture.   Fradique Bandeira Melo De Menezes, President of Sao Tome and Principe stated that the basis of international security lay in the protection of people and their education toward capacity building for community development. “Nations that do not pay attention to this set of conditions could be in permanent tension,” he said. For this reason, HIV/AIDS, poverty, political crises, ongoing violations of human rights, oppression and occupation, constitute threats to human security, he added.   Toward tackling those challenges and threats, Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart Tokaev of Kazakhstan said that the World Summit had laid the groundwork for the most radical reforms in the Organization’s history. Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk of Ukraine warned Member States to make sure that a lack of unity would not be a hindrance to either making reforms or to meeting goals in development and peace and security.   Continuing the General Debate of the 60th Anniversary year of the United Nations, the General Assembly this afternoon heard leaders of developing countries describe the challenges they face in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that aim to slash hunger, poverty and other ills by 2015.   El Salvador’s President Elías Antonio Saca González pointed to new obstacles such as high oil prices, the effects of HIV/AIDS, organized crime, and discrimination against migrants. He highlighted the importance of dialogue for overcoming such problems and achieving world-wide well-being and the successful reform of the UN.   Bolivian President Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé said achieving the MDGs after the recent political crisis that shook his country would require creativity, new policy ideas and resources to respond to the inequalities that now exist. “Regional autonomies will lead to establishment of a new social contract through democracy as required by the Millennium Declaration,” he added.   Prime Minister Tuileapa Sailele Malielegaoi of Samoa said challenges in meeting the MDGs were being met in his Small Island Developing State (SIDS) through priority legislation and partnerships with the UN system and others. To allow the Organization to better assist with such efforts, reform should aim at an “effective and strengthened organization to reflect the realities of the 21st Century.”   Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini stressed that global solidarity is the answer to many of the ills besetting the world, from underdevelopment to terrorism to instability.   Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also stressed the importance of eradicating terrorism, which he said stymied development and, in turn, bred more extremism. “The UN was not meant to create heaven in the world, but to prevent it from going to hell,” he added.   Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon of the Republic of Korea noted that in aiming for the MDGs “success will be reached when each of us started looking beyond the immediate horizon.” His country was increasing aid and partnerships for that purpose, he added.   For his part, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy discussed in detail the range of conflicts in the world that were impeding development, along with the international action that was needed to help resolve them.   Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon of Thailand underscored the enormity of the challenges. “Each day 50,000 people continue to perish from poverty and hunger,” he said. “Money being spent on arms and weapons continues to outpace money being spent on saving lives.”   Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian referred to his own nation’s difficulties as a small landlocked country without natural resources. “Our greatest natural resource is our population,” he said. “The path to security passes through development.” Democratization of international relations and institutions were essential, he added.   Foreign Minister Elmar Maharram Oglu Mammadyarov of Azerbaijan said the MDGs remained an indispensable part of his country’s agenda, stressing the importance of the cancellation of debt, aid and trade to open up resources for development, and improved market access.   Argentine Foreign Minister Rafael Antonio Bielsa concentrated much of his address on human rights in view of his country’s past history of military dictatorships. But, urging a fairer trade system, he called on developed countries to do away with subsidies. “Developed countries must eliminate protection mechanisms,” he said, advocating equitable and lasting solutions for the external debt problem.   Papau New Guinea’s Foreign Minister Rabbie L. Namaliu said UN reform must be representative of the developing countries. Much more needed to be done to achieve MDGs, which were impeded by high debt, he declared. He called for the elimination of agricultural subsidies by developed countries. “Trade is the engine of economic growth and development,” he added.   Rwandan Foreign Minister Charles Murigande called for concerted action to realize the MDGs” and create a world free from poverty, hunger and deprivation. He said his country, scene of the genocide of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Hutu extremists in 1994, welcomed the new global commitment to protect against such acts, but he added: “Actions, not words, will be the measure of our success or failure.”   Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks struck a similar note, calling for a more efficient United Nations to deal with situations like the genocide in Rwanda and the current conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region. He declared his country’s support for the establishment of a Human Rights Council, UN management reforms, achievement of the MDGs and gender equality.   President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation stressed that while there was a real need to adjust to “the new historical reality", steps to reform the world body should unite, not separate the international community. The experience and authority of the United Nations enabled it to play its indispensable, truly unique role in global policy, and economic and humanitarian cooperation, said Mr. Putin, calling for constructive and inclusive organizational reform at the General Assembly’s 2005 World Summit convened to forge a global consensus on development, security, human rights and United Nations renewal.   But Hugo Chavez Frias, President of Venezuela, argued that the United Nations had outlived its model and that the twenty-first century required profound changes that meant a recasting of the Organization, not merely reforms.   A revamped United Nations required that the Security Council be expanded in the permanent and non-permanent categories and that its working methods be improved to increase transparency. Further, the “elite mechanism” of the veto decision should be removed in the Security Council, and the role of the Secretary-General should be strengthened, he stated.   Calling for a more measured approach, Sri Lanka’s President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga said it was time to take stock and remain focused, with a view to moving forward. Member States had a substantial unfinished agenda and new challenges to face. Reform of the Organization must be in the multilateral interest and embrace all facets of the United Nations’ activities.   The vision that Member States adopted at the Summit should be decisive, she stated. It should serve as a road map leading to further change and reform. The changes must touch on the Organization’s entire agenda, overall reforms could not be piecemeal, but must benefit all Member States equitably. An integrated approach to security, development and human rights was the key to achieving that, she said.   Mathieu Kérékou, President of Benin, said the document before the Summit acknowledged that new challenges had emerged and that reform must be undertaken courageously to make progress. The United Nations was the unique forum for addressing problems that faced global society, and the Security Council’s composition and working methods must be reformed to reflect the new realities, with Africa given fair representation.
	President Bush must address Poverty in America by Gary Hart / Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) California, USA   15 October, 2005   "The art of caring for Souls", by Gary Hart. (Huffington Post)   Belief in the ineffectiveness of government, as we have seen in recent weeks, is self-fulfilling. For some, it is also deadly. It is a cause for wonder that those most critical of government are among those most eager to secure its power. Not believing in government, however, a conservative either does not know or care to know how to make it effective.   Response to hurricane Katrina is not proof of government’s failure; it is proof of George W. Bush’s failure to govern effectively.   The failure to govern well is a natural and a predictable result of disbelief in government. It is a brief step from disbelief in government to disbelief in governance. With many Democrats in tow, conservatives have demonized government: “Government is not the answer; government is the problem,” was Ronald Reagan’s inaugural pronouncement. How does one, not believing in government, respond when given its reins? In the case of the incumbent and previous conservative presidents the response is to not take it too seriously. Work out a couple of hours a day. Take a nap. Watch television in the evenings. Resist foreign travel and engagement in the great events of the times. Delegate authority, in many cases to incompetent people, because it really doesn’t matter much. Most of all avoid responsibility and, at all costs, accept accountability only reluctantly.   The most obvious problem with this theory of management, if you wish to call it that, is that people die. On January 31, 2001, the U.S. Commission on National Security - 21st Century, the most comprehensive review of national security in more than half a century which I co-chaired with Warren Rudman, warned of terrorist attacks and urged President Bush to create a Department of Homeland Security. Eight months later, 9.11 occurred. He was warned. He neglected to act. Another nine months went by before he reluctantly acceded to our recommendation. A year and a half was lost. He was never called to account.   Four years later hurricane Katrina revealed how slip-shod, mismanaged, uncoordinated, lackadaisical that agency still was. The president took little or no interest. He could not be bothered. This was “government” and he does not believe in government. When in public office, I heard chanted like a mantra, Why can’t we run government like a business? Perhaps only George W. Bush can imagine running a giant corporation like he tries to run the government of the world’s greatest super-power. It would soon be on the verge of bankruptcy, its customers would have fled, its management would be in chaos, and any board of directors worth its salt would have fired him. Does he really want to be held to serious business standards? As Edmund Burke had it, “a great empire and little minds go ill together.” The columnist David Brooks recently asked how “a comprehensive governmental failure is going to restore America’s faith in big government.” It shouldn’t. But it should now cause Americans to wake up to the difference between ineffective and effective government and the consequence of electing a “leader” who not only doesn’t believe in government, he doesn’t believe in governance. To judge the effectiveness of government by the performance of the most incompetent president in modern times is a shabby refuge for discredited conservatism.   There was a time when the terrorism of the day was economic depression. Thankfully we had a president who had the genius to govern effectively and he saved democratic capitalism. But he couldn’t waste much time on an exercise bike, for he had polio.   Whatever one’s beliefs about the size of government, and the size of government has increased under Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, there ought to be some commonsense consensus that to seek to govern at all involves a solemn commitment to govern well. And to govern well means to be engaged, to step off the exercise bike and into the machinery of management, to appoint competent managers and actively inquire whether they are doing their jobs, to visit the levees before they give way, to order a snap emergency drill at Homeland Security and put a stop-watch on performance, to visit first responders (even without photographers) to see if they are awake and to offer encouragement.   Had we had a president who believed in effective, energetic government, levees might have been strengthened, drills coordinating disaster response among levels of government might have been carried out, mothballed military bases might have been made ready for victims, evacuation plans might have been current. We have now paid the somber price for the carefree neglect, the smirk and the wink, the frat-boy funny names, the swagger and the brush-cutting photo-ops. Now is the time for a sober understanding that governing America requires more than an attitude, especially one that guarantees ineffective government and incompetent governance.   We might then not have the most physically fit president in recent history, but we would surely have a more physically fit nation.   15 September 2005   "President Bush must address Poverty in America". (Congresswoman Barbara Lee / Dem-Oakland)   The devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina has torn down the curtain, and exposed the dirty secret that divides our nation like an open wound.   If anyone ever doubted that there were two Americas, hurricane Katrina and our government''s shameful response to it have made the division clear for all to see.   New Orleans is a city where 67 percent of the population was black. Nearly 30 percent, one in every three people, were living below the poverty line. Twenty one percent of the households earned less than $10,000 a year. Eighty four percent of the people living in poverty in New Orleans were black.   The brutal fact is that the majority of people who died in this tragedy were poor, primarily African Americans. Many were old and disabled.   So, when the disaster came, people who had cash in the bank and a car in the garage escaped, and those who did not were shamefully left to fend for themselves.   The incompetence and indifference demonstrated by the administration in responding to this tragedy was shocking, but it wasn''t surprising. Does anyone doubt that if this sort of devastation had taken place in the communities where the small percentage of people who are benefiting from the Bush administration''s tax cuts live, the response would have been swift and efficient? Can you imagine these individuals, desperately clinging to their roofs, waiting for days to be rescued?   This indifference to the most vulnerable among us is not isolated to this tragedy. It is part and parcel of a systemic problem that seeks to make a large sector of our population invisible, where more than $200 billion has gone towards an unnecessary war that has stripped our resources for economic and homeland security.   Many people, viewing the human tragedy left in Katrina''s wake, could not recognize the images they were seeing. They thought they were witnessing a tragedy in Somalia, Haiti or Sudan. They think to themselves, this does not look like the America that I know. Some have even come to refer to the survivors of this catastrophe as "refugees," as if the images of the survivors they are seeing are too foreign for them to recognize them as Americans.   For some of us, however, this is an America we know too well, an America that is too often swept under the rug by lawmakers and the media.   The truth is, there are almost 36 million Americans living in poverty in the United States today. There are more than 15 million living in extreme poverty.   What does that mean? According to the Census Bureau, it means that a family of three is living on less than $14,680 a year. They define extreme poverty as half of that.   The connection between poverty and race cannot be ignored. In 2003, while 8.2 percent of whites lived in poverty, the number was 22.5 was for Latinos and 24.4 percent for African Americans.   Since President Bush took office, the number of poor people in America has grown by 17 percent. In 2002-2003 the number of children living in extreme poverty grew by half a million.   This is the real state of the so-called "ownership society." And it is unacceptable. The Bush administration''s zeal for cutting taxes for the wealthy while cutting the programs that reach the most vulnerable helped lay the groundwork for this disaster.   Ideas have consequences, and the aftermath of Katrina has demonstrated the bankruptcy of the Bush administration''s idea of the role of government. It was not simply the failure to respond to the hurricane in a coherent or competent manner, it was the tragic failure to acknowledge the massive structural crisis that poverty and inequality pose for our nation and the stubborn refusal to conceive of any constructive role for our government in addressing it.   It is time to start moving in the right direction again, and the first step is for the Bush administration to acknowledge that there is a problem.   I call on President Bush to demonstrate that he is not indifferent to the least among us. I have introduced legislation, asking President Bush to present his plan to eradicate poverty in this nation.   America has been shocked by the images that have exposed this terrible divide in our nation. It is up to us now to decide whether our government has a responsibility to help improve the lives of the millions of Americans who are living in poverty, or whether we will again abandon them to the dirty water to fend for themselves.   Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) represents California''s Ninth Congressional District.   September 5, 2005   "Killed by Contempt", by Paul Krugman. (New York Times)   Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the lethal ineptitude of federal officials. I"m not letting state and local officials off the hook, but federal officials had access to resources that could have made all the difference, but were never mobilized.   Here"s one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday - without patients.   Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the crucial window during which prompt action can save many lives. Yet action after Katrina was anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a "strange paralysis" set in among Bush administration officials, who debated lines of authority while thousands died.   What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly failed his test. After 9/11, all the country really needed from him was a speech. This time it needed action - and he didn"t deliver.   But the federal government"s lethal ineptitude wasn"t just a consequence of Mr. Bush"s personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn"t forthcoming?   Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing airport security? Even after 9/11, the administration and conservative members of Congress tried to keep airport security in the hands of private companies. They were more worried about adding federal employees than about closing a deadly hole in national security.   Of course, the attempt to keep airport security private wasn"t just about philosophy; it was also an attempt to protect private interests. But that"s not really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about government easily morphs into a readiness to treat government spending as a way to reward your friends. After all, if you don"t believe government can do any good, why not?   Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In my last column, I asked whether the Bush administration had destroyed FEMA"s effectiveness. Now we know the answer.   Several recent news analyses on FEMA"s sorry state have attributed the agency"s decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security, whose prime concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.   For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush took office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in responses to disaster to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began trying to scale back some of FEMA"s preparedness programs.   You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility to emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management is as important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is following a natural disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows that we are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today than we were four years ago.   But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael Brown as Mr. Allbaugh"s successor.   Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr. Allbaugh"s college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of FEMA; The Boston Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown became the agency"s director. The raw cronyism of that appointment showed the contempt the administration felt for the agency; one can only imagine the effects on staff morale.   That contempt, as I"ve said, reflects a general hostility to the role of government as a force for good. And Americans living along the Gulf Coast have now reaped the consequences of that hostility.   The administration has always tried to treat 9/11 purely as a lesson about good versus evil. But disasters must be coped with, even if they aren"t caused by evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why we need an effective government, and why dedicated public servants deserve our respect. Will we listen?   (Paul Krugman is professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University).   6 - 9 - 2005   "After Katrina, a government adrift", by Godfrey Hodgson. (openDemocracy)   It is not just the levees of New Orleans that are weak. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, George Bush’s predicament reveals serious breaches in the way the American government works – weaknesses that result from the domination of sectarian conservative politics in the country’s administration and culture.   It would be nice to think that the conservative ascendancy is the democratic consequence of mass conversion of a majority of the American electorate to conservative shibboleths in law, economics, religion and foreign policy. It would be truer to say that it is the result of a quarter-century of political manipulation by a surprisingly small coterie of conservative activists.   Conservatives like to say that those pesky Democrats enjoyed a comparable ascendancy once. They didn’t. In the middle third of the 20th century, when Democrats controlled the White House most of the time and the Congress almost all the time, the real flywheel that ran the country was a conservative alliance between mostly conservative Republicans and the bloc of southern conservative Democrats, some twenty senators and a hundred members of the House of Representatives. That structure was swept away by the civil rights revolution. But the counter-intuitive consequence has been to give conservative Republicans an opportunity to dominate every part of a system that was supposed to be checked and balanced.   Those of us who admired the political system the conservatives have been doing their best to dismantle must look beyond the immediate inadequacy of George W Bush to the long-term damage the conservative ascendancy has done to American government and society.   Damage and dereliction   As the feeblest president since the 1920s struggles to delay the disappearance of his political credibility beneath the muddy waters of New Orleans and Baghdad, paradoxically Republican conservatives have achieved a dominance without precedent in the American system which, thanks to the legal traditionalists of the Federalist Society, runs flat contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers.   It is almost irresistibly tempting to heap Mississippi mud on George Bush. His response was pathetic. Though he has not so far appeared in a specially designed “commander-in-chief” jacket to tell us that his mission has been accomplished, his first response was to see Katrina as an opportunity to call on his fellow-citizens to import less oil - that is, to call on Congress to give more perks to the oil and gas business that has contributed so handsomely to the private and political fortunes of his friends and supporters.   But it is unseemly to kick a fellow when he is down, even if you sense he would do it to you. And more importantly, many of the charges thrown at him do not stick. Whatever you think of the war in Iraq, the absence in the middle east of part of the Mississippi national guard was hardly the reason for the administration’s tardy and incompetent response. The explanation of that is simpler: it is to be found in the callous indifference among conservatives towards the poor.   While it is true that the class bias of the Bush administration’s domestic and budget policies has helped weaken the ability of both state and federal agencies to respond to an almost unprecedented domestic disaster, it was nevertheless an absence of sympathy, not a lack of means, which motivated the low priority given to poor, mostly black victims. (The disaster is almost unprecedented – there have been great disasters in the US before, such as the Mississippi flood of 1927, which flooded 26,000 square miles, caused more than a thousand deaths and forced almost a million people from their homes.)   Unfortunately it is not a surprise that, forty years after the Lyndon B Johnson administration’s civil-rights legislation, most African-Americans in the Deep South live in poverty. Journalistic rhetoric along the lines of “how could this happen in the midst of the world’s richest nation/lone superpower/greatest democracy?” is wide of the mark. Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Alabama and Arkansas are and have always been a “third-world” region with a democracy deficit, in spite of the arrival of a few Japanese car plants and a booming gambling industry, protected by Republican insider lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.   Meanwhile, it may or may not be true that Katrina’s ferocity, which wrought such devastation on the coast, owes something to the global warming about which Bush and his political housecarls are still in denial. At present, there seems to be no scientific consensus that hurricanes are more frequent and more severe because of climate change. But, ominously, as the hurricane sped towards the shore, Republican committee chairmen in Congress were harrying leading scientists who dare to suggest global warming might be at least in part man-made.   Dominance over government   Now is the time for those of us who care about what the conservative ascendancy has done to America to estimate the flood damage. Sectarian conservatives – by which I mean not those of a cautious or traditionalist bent, but ambitious politicos who long ago signed up to a self-interested ideological takeover of the American government – control all branches of the polity.   It is not just that the president is a conservative Republican, and that consequently the vice-president, the White House staff, the cabinet officers and all senior members of the administration have passed a rigorous ideological screening.   The entire culture of Washington is now dominated by this same ideological mindset. The most powerful law firms, the K Street lobbying organisations, the best-funded research institutions, all do obeisance to the party line, or face the consequences. Even the Washington media, once respected for its feisty independence, seems almost intimidated, as the Bush administration wields as much pressure as it can — by fair means and not so fair — to exclude critics and neutralise opposition. Public television is just one recent target. Over on mainstream television, so-called pundits engage in reactionary, derogatory disputes.   The founders intended the legislative and judicial branches of government to be equipped with separate, balanced powers, each checking the other. Today not only are both houses of Congress controlled by conservative Republicans, but those conservative Republicans are themselves intimidated by a handful of powerful figures who limit the freedom of committee scrutiny, cut off financial resources from those who do not toe the line, and behave in ways that make the legendary Democratic powerbrokers of the past - Lyndon B Johnson, speaker Sam Rayburn, Judge Smith of the rules committee and Wilbur Mills of ways and means - look positively biddable.   As for the judges, George W Bush has just nominated a candidate to the supreme sourt who, whatever his great qualities, is a safe conservative vote. With the death of chief justice William H Rehnquist and John Roberts’ appointment, he will be able to maintain an unassailable conservative majority on the court, at a time when there is steady pressure from conservative headquarters for the judges to reverse the progressive measures of the Warren court and repeal Roe vs. Wade. Moreover, the Bush administration and the Republicans in the Senate are unashamedly determined to appoint only conservatives to as many federal judgeships as they can.   While the administration claims to be bringing democracy to the benighted populations of the middle east, at home the United States sees the spirit and the practice of genuine democracy more threatened than at any time since the Gilded Age of the 19th century.   At the heart of this “conservative” ideology has been a sustained attack on government, which is habitually derided as bureaucracy. Government budgets have been cut, government servants humiliated and harassed. Is it any wonder that the efficacy of government has suffered, in Baghdad and on the Gulf coast? In both cases, the tooth-clenched “resolve” the president is always talking about has not proved a substitute for efficiency and generosity.   Dare we hope that the truly lasting importance of the hurricane will be to revive the news media’s independence, and to alert the Democratic party to the full spectrum of dangers in giving unchecked power to a shallow president, corporate interests, and a limited political and ideological clique?
	View more stories