Book Report: Paris 1919

It feels like I have been reading this book forever. Overall, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World was pretty good (although her writing and organization is a little confusing at times). I wish I had a map of Europe and the Middle East on hand as I was reading it as her descriptions of the boundary negotiations were quite detailed. And I also found I needed to brush up on my 19th Century European history as I was reading (good old Spark Notes).

It's amazing how much the World War I peace conference set up the world as we know it today - especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - and therefore is the cause of many of the problems that we face.

One of the failings of the treaty was how it had to reconcile two different time periods. It was in some ways wedded to the past peace treaties that focused on imperialism, distributing spoils of war and punishing the losers. At the same time, it tried to also look to the idealism of Wilson's Fourteen Points of self-determination and equality (in some cases). So what we got was an imperfect treaty that often diverged from the Fourteen Points.

All of the decisions on the Middle East ignored the idea of "self-determination." The borders of the new countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq were based on imperialist aims, not on how best to divide up Kurdish, Persian, Arab and Turkish nations or Sunni, Shiite, Marionite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druse, and secular religions. And the homeland for Jewish people in Palestine ignored whether Palestinians wanted an influx of European and Russian Jews.

The decision to unite Iraq was based on the British recognizing the value of oil in Mosul and its desire to protect its interests in India. It added Kurish populations to the new country just to add more territory. Lebanon was expanded to give the Marionite Christian population more land, dividing Syria and ignoring the fact that the extra land would include Muslims. At the time this book was written (2002), Syria was still occupying Lebanon.

It is also amazing to see how important personality was in the treaty discussions. Greece was often given its way because its representative was popular and charismatic, while Italy was largely spurned because its reps were tactless and unpopular. The support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from effective lobbying.

The bottom line is that the final treaty is obviously imperfect. It was a massive undertaking, but comes out inconsistent and sloppy in many ways. After reading this book however, I am not sure that I blame it for World War II or the conflicts in the Balkans. I do though blame it for some of the problems in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine).

Jindal - Just Governor for Now

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016.

What I like: intelligent and competent (from what I have heard so far), not white (because it is good for the Republican party - the party where rumors of Obama as a Muslim spread too easily), and pragmatic (from what I have heard so far).

What I don't like: for all his intelligence, he believes in intelligent design and is against abortion in all circumstances.

As you can see, I don't know a ton about him. At least, he seems like a breath of fresh air after eight years of Bush and the possibility of Palin for our future. It will be interesting to see his career progress.

UDHR: 60 Years

So today marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One year ago today the volunteer organization I was a part of joined a campaign to raise awareness of the declaration and the approaching anniversary. We were to be a small part of the campaign, but we were excited about it. Our effort fell apart, and the bigger effort doesn't seem to have done much better. Granted, I am writing this post at the beginning of the day, so maybe I'll be surprised by the end.

Fighting for human rights seems destined to break your heart. While there are some signs of progress, it is slow and incomplete. And more often than progress we see new and continuing tragedies. Oh I wish I could come to this fight always upbeat and optimistic, but realistically speaking, progress is way too slow. Around the world we see ongoing violence that is little noticed in places like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even violence that is more well noticed but still nothing is done in places like Darfur, Kenya and Zimbabwe. I myself often pay more attention to conflict, but throughout the third world people still die when more food and basic medical care would prevent their deaths.

Looking back over the last 60 years, it is hard to see positive examples of the world rallying to protect human rights.

I started volunteering for human rights issues over a year ago. After having expanded my reading and visiting Zambia, I decided I needed to do more. It wasn't right for me to go on living an easy life in the face of what I was seeing and learning about. I decided that my short term goal was to volunteer and my long term goal was to change careers to have a focus on more urgent international issues.

The volunteering didn't work out. I imagine those volunteering will disagree, but I found that we weren't having much of an effect. When the problems you cover are thousands of miles away and require money and political action to make an impact, spending a few hours a week just doesn't do much. This experience has lead me to continue volunteering at the local level, where the results are more tangible. I can spend two hours a week and help a student improve in math. I contrast this with spending two hours trying to take baby steps to raise awareness of issues that groups with more resources and reach are also working on to limited effect.

The volunteering has also changed how I feel about my long term goal. My career goal is to make the most impact I can on an urgent issue (or issues). For international issues, there seem to be few jobs but many people talented people who want those jobs. Domestically though, I sense that there are way more job opportunities than qualified candidates. I am leaving open the possibility of finding work impacting major human rights issues internationally. But I believe that one cam accomplish more when focused locally.

This doesn't mean that I think local issues are more important. Human rights need to be protected everywhere and I will take jobs where I feel I am needed. But mobilization and help is easier locally. So for now, that is where I will focus my time.

If I can't work / volunteer to help international problems, what can I do? This is what I am debating these days. I will continue to donate money to worthy causes. I know these donations help, but they don't ease my conscience; in no way do I feel that my paltry donations are all I need to do for these issues.

As for this blog, I am not naive enough to think that it is having an impact. It is more a place for me to express myself than to really raise awareness. I am looking to find ways to increase awareness, but I have no good ideas. When the group I was a part of hosted the Women and Youth Panel, I found that we were preaching to the choir. The people that showed up already cared about these issues. Probably the greatest obstacle to achieving human rights is reaching people who don't want to be reached.

For now though, it seems that I will have to live with disappointment, as the world ignores major human rights issues, and deal with my feeling of powerlessness. Happy 60th anniversary.

Feeling Moody about Moody's?

There is definitely a lot of blame to go around for the current financial crisis, where products were judged to be a good investment but have turned out to be seriously flawed. In lite of this, a large portion of the blame must rest with the rating agencies. They gave high ratings to securities that they later had to significantly downgrade. The question then is why were they so wrong?

There seem to be three possible reasons. One, maybe the loss of value was not something that could have been reasonably forecast. I don't believe that this was the reason. It just seems too obvious that many of these securities were more risky then their ratings showed.

Two, a conflict of interest may have influenced their ratings. That there was a conflict seems clear. Moody's for example, is a for-profit enterprise, and its revenue, since the 1970s, comes from the agencies issuing the securities. Therefore, it is in their interest to please the issuers by granting high ratings. The article suggests that as Moody's became more focused on profits, it lost its independence.

Finally, maybe they just didn't do their research, or didn't do it well. The Times article also gets at this, although only briefly:

Even though the standards at many lenders declined precipitously during the boom, rating agencies did not take that into account. The agencies maintained that it was not their responsibility to assess the quality of each and every mortgage loan tossed into a pool.

It seems to me that Moody's failures are a combination of second and third possibilities I mentioned. I imagine though the difference between the first reason and the third reason is whether you think the things they used for the ratings were reasonable. And I argue that it wasn't reasonable. If they weren't assessing the quality of every mortgage what were they using to generate their rating?

The key though is more than just passing blame. There needs to be serious reform. Non-profit rating agencies are one answer. Changing the source of the rating agency's revenue is another - although that doesn't seem like it would work. And definitely improving their methodology is a must. Let's see if the public / politicians have the attention span to do this right.

Future for Afghanistan

I remember in the VP debate there was a back and forth over whether the strategy to pacify Iraq would work in Afghanistan. Biden remarked that the Iraq strategy wouldn't work - citing comments from the military leader in Afghanistan. At the time though, I didn't really know what they meant - which part of the Iraq strategy wouldn't work? Now I know.

Okay, so turning Sunni leaders against foreign Al Qeada in Mesopotamia fighters was far easier than getting Sunni tribal leaders who support the home-grown Taliban to support the new Afghan government. Is it hopeless?

It seems that it will just be much harder. We'll have to show that siding with the Taliban means joining the losing side and that through the government is the means to delivering real improvements to the people in their region. In other words, it will take real commitment, real resources (not just military) and time. This should have been the plan from the beginning. Well, hopefully now we have a president with a normal attention span who will see this through. The people of Afghanistan need it.

Nat Geo: An Amazing Thing

I finally realized that National Geographic is the most amazing magazine ever. So I subscribed. Here is what I have been reading about:Rural health workers in India (The article describes an amazing program that is using women in the lowest caste to improve health in the poorest areas.), King Herod as architectural genius (and brutal although its unlikely that he killed all newborn children as the Gospel according to Matthew claims), historical artifacts being looted in the power vacuum of the West Bank, right whales, bee-eaters (some of the most beautiful birds in the world, we saw them in Zambia - check the pictures and see for yourself), Neanderthals (did they exist at the same time as humans?), beautiful ancient Persian archeology in Iran, bush meat trade threatening primates, a good article about giant asteroids and earth, mountain gorillas in Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo and caught in the middle of the conflict as well as a profitable charcoal trade, two really good articles on the American West - one on fires the other on drying and droughts, coral reefs, black pharaohs (from Nubia) of Egypt, Hazaras the long-oppressed minority group in Afghanistan (I had never heard of them before reading Kite Runner, and so this article is great), and an article about the Sahel (border between the Sahara and the tropical areas of Africa) where the author was held prisoner by the Sudanese government and I think he will win a Pulitzer Prize for the article.

My favorites are probably the articles about the health workers in India, the Hazara people in Afghanistan, the story on the Sahel, and the gorillas in Virunga. And I am a sucker for clear pictures of whales.

You can see why I am so excited. And this list is from only seven of the year's issues. Amazing. Basically it is a perfect blend of articles on history, international affairs, and animal species and the environment. Oh yeah, there are pictures too.

Natural Resources: More Harm than Good

The NY Times is doing a three-part series on how natural resource wealth contributes to conflict and inhibits growth in developing countries. This topic was a major theme in Paul Collier's book The Bottom Billion (I wrote about this book on my other short-lived blog on human rights but I realize I need to read it again to brush up on its main points). The first article was in this Sunday's Times and I think this is the main point:

This is Africa's resource curse: The wealth is unearthed by the poor, controlled by the strong, then sold to a world largely oblivious of its origins.

In the story the Times tells, one unit of the army controls a tin mine - tin is a major component of computers and mobile phones - and extracts "taxes" from all involved in the trade. The army is unable to control this unit, in part because of ongoing battles between a Tutsi rebel group, the Congolese Army, and Hutu militias left over from the Rwandan genocide.

There are a number of lessons to learn from this article. First, and probably most important is that "conflict diamonds" get the attention, but the truth is that there are many more conflict resources that we use unaware. Many things that we buy finance violence and suffering in the places where the resource comes from. The solution isn't necessarily to stop buying products with resources from the Congo, but to at least be aware that it is happening and demand change.

The second point is the role of multinational corporations. In this example, there is a multinational company that has rights to the mine, but are being prevented from accessing the mine because of the army unit. The multinational company of course says they were going to build schools and power stations and in other ways give back to the region. The problem is that in the past, these corporations haven't given back to the country. Instead, they have taken the resources out, fought to pay as little in taxes as possible, made themselves rich off the resource as the country continues to suffer in extreme poverty. The US government has a long history of supporting corporations who see nothing wrong with pillaging resources from developing countries. In fact our history with the Congo in particular is a testament to this.

The third point that comes out of this article is how conflicts that are ignored can continue to breed violence for decades as long as we continue to do very little to actually stabilize these situations. So much of the violence in the Congo stems from the continued presence of the Hutu militias that carried out the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Bill Clinton - and Hillary - talk about their regret for turning their back on that genocide. But their talk gives the impression that the event is over, when in fact we are still seeing its ongoing effects. If they really cared, they would have made sure this conflict was actually over before apologizing.

It is depressing beyond mention to see countries so rich in resources and beauty - the Virunga National Park is one of the most beautiful and diverse in the world but the region is too unstable for tourism - yet instead of getting rich and growing because of these resources, they remain in a state of poverty and conflict. Internal groups like the military unit in this story bear some of the blame. But so does a capitalist system that cares way more about profit than it does human rights and decency and an international governmental system that can do little to help those that suffer the most. Then again, you can't expect businesses to care, or international organizations to mobilize, about these things if the people that support them don't care either.

Auto Bailout? *Sigh*

I must say, I am surprised that one of Obama's first proposals is a bailout of the American auto industry. Not only did it seem to come out of nowhere, it also feels ill-advised. I guess I can see that the Democrats want to show that they can provide bailouts for blue collar workers - not just the white collar jobs in the financial sector. At the same time, it really seems like we have been bailing out the American auto industry for far too long. They have a history of building cars that don't last, they seem incapable of staying ahead of trends, and worse of all resist calls to improve fuel efficiency and move towards alternate fuel technologies and only do so after other firms (mostly Honda and Toyota) have beat them to the punch.

Instead, I really think we need to let these companies fail. In their place we could see American car manufacturers that put innovation - and greener technology - first. Now, if the Democrats want to allow for a soft landing of the car companies, and provide support for those who will be laid off, I can get behind that. In fact, maybe they could provide tax breaks for new American auto start-ups that will buy the old manufacturing plants and hire the former workers (this idea is definitely off the cuff - so it might prove unrealistic for new companies to start because of high fixed costs).

I really think this is where Democrats get a bad name. We want to help those of moderate or lower incomes, but we tend to choose policies that are more populist and less economic - policies that might help in the short run, but really hurt in the long run. This makes little sense from an efficiency standpoint and furthermore, it isn't the only option - or necessarily the best option - from a fairness standpoint. I know I won't agree with the Obama administration on everything, but I thought I would make it farther than this.

Note: Although I definitely have my favorite columnists, sometimes I feel like a hack by only printing their opinions instead of mine. It's hard though when they make the point so much better. Anyway, here is David Brooks' take on the auto bailout:

But the larger principle is over the nature of America’s political system. Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.

Navy I Wear to Work

A while ago I read The Woman at the Washington Zoo, which is a collection of columns by Marjorie Williams, a Washington Post columnist that died of cancer in 2005 three days after her 47th birthday. The title of the book refers to a poem by Randall Jarrell about women hiding part of their true selves to remain under the radar, and thereby achieve some success, in the professional world.

Williams wrote political columns as well as some excellent political profiles, including Jeb Bush, the Clinton and Gore White House, and Barbara Bush. Some of my favorite columns from the book are about politics and modern feminism. The columns are nuanced and very intelligent. Her writing was objective, and sometimes stood against the liberal opinions at the time. The strongest example of this is her writings during the Clinton sex scandal; she seemed to be one of the few who was criticizing Clinton by describing how this was a set back for feminism and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Williams' obvious talents are sorely missed, especially when comparing her to current columnists. Maureen Dowd for example also writes about feminism. But Dowd rarely seems as objective, thoughtful, or capable of nuance. Gail Collins and Judith Warner are both pretty good, but there is something missing in their columns as well.

By the end of the book you are heartbroken, not only because you wish she was still alive and writing, but because of what she went through. You feel for her family, husband and two children, who miss her far more than her readers ever can. And you feel for her because of how much of her rich life she will miss. So that politics is never ignored, she makes sure to show readers how medicine can do wonders, as well as where it falls short. Her treatment was so great because of her connections, and she reminds her readers that most people wouldn't get treatment half as good. So while we marvel at how much extra time she managed, we see that more needs to be done for those without her resources.

Read this book for her sharp writing and deep insights. Read it because you might not find a better columnist or political profile journalist for a long time. And read it because of how close you feel to her before it ends. I miss her and I didn't even know about her while she was alive.

Hillary is Back

Remember when Hillary was getting as much news as Obama? And there was all the talk about whether she would be Obama's VP and if not whether she would campaign for him? Then in a few weeks, it didn't seem to matter. The country easily made the transition from Obama v. Hillary to Obama v. McCain.

Well, now Hillary is back in the news and apparently she is the front-runner for Secretary of State. When I first heard this, I was torn. I felt she had exaggerated her foreign policy experience during the campaign and so I wondered what made her qualified to head the State Department. At the same time, even though I think she is incredibly smart, I think this would be a better position than Supreme Court Justice.

As for the other contenders - I am surprised no one is mentioning Bill Richardson anymore. Maybe Timothy Noah convinced everyone else that it would be a bad choice. And I agree with Gail Collins that John Kerry would not be a very good choice. Frankly, I'm not sure what Kerry would be good for, except to stay on in the Senate. And nobody seems to be mentioning Edwards anymore - all because of an affair.

I think though that Hillary would be a good choice. Her role as first lady did include much time traveling as a dignitary of the US, which would be a large part of her role as Secretary of State. Where I think she exaggerated her experience was her level of involvement in decision-making. Here she would get that chance. The only worry is whether Obama could control her. I would like to think that in this role, it would be easier than if she had been VP.

Congo: What Happened While We Were Watching the Election

The violence and tensions in the Congo, where tens of thousands of the most violent rapes have been happening, has escalated recently. The Tutsi rebels have advanced on major cities, sending as many as 250,000 civilians fleeing their homes. Right now, African leaders are working to diffuse the situation, while western leaders again don't give this the attention it deserves. And I too must confess my lack of attention recently.

While the lack of awareness about this issue is disheartening as always, the most depressing aspect is the peacekeepers. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in the Congo, but they have been unable to keep any sort of peace or protect anyone. Protesters, fed up with the UN's inability to protect them, were throwing rocks at the UN.

I don't blame them for their frustration. In fact, their anger is my anger. That so many people's lives are continuously put in danger with only minor efforts to alleviate the situation, makes me want to throw rocks with them. Unfortunately, it isn't the fault of the UN, but of the strong member states in the UN that put such a paltry peacekeeping mission in a place with such extreme violence. It is the deficiency of justice in the real world that you can never really express your full anger to the people who are truly responsible for your situation.

Georgia; The Truth Comes Out

The whole situation between Georgia and Russia scares the hell out of me. Not because I am afraid of another cold war. That just seems ridiculous (despite how the cable news channels played that up during the hostilities). Instead, it is the slow access to good information.

This New York Times article provides some evidence that it was Georgia who launched an unprovoked, or at least disproportionate, shelling on villages in South Ossetia. It was that attack - after a cease fire - that provoked Russia's response. This isn't the first article to show Georgia as the aggressor, but it provides more evidence than others I have seen.

Even now though, there isn't complete evidence to say this conclusively. And that is what scares me. In this situation, with little evidence, where both sides have a history of deception and exaggeration, the only option seems to be to trust your ally. That is a significant problem when your ally is just as untrustworthy as your enemy (if you can really call Russia an enemy - our foreign policy still operates that way, but I am not so sure if we should).

What is even worse is that I don't get the impression that the American public is interested in considering the nuance in this situation nor is it patient enough to wait for good information to come out. This pushes our foreign policy in a distinct direction. The job of the president therefore is to be more calm than the people, wait for good information if possible, but always understand that your allies won't always tell you the truth or make good decisions.

Why Aren't They All Religious Left?

From the archives:

Somehow, the following post never actually got posted. But I couldn't let it rest, so here it is. The post is about Huckabee - remember him? He was a candidate for president in the Republican primaries. I know, it seems like such a long time ago. Anyway...

I don't talk about religion on here much, but when I see statements like the following (from this NY Times article), I have to say something.

Since Mr. Huckabee’s success in Iowa, however, his campaign has faced a barrage of attacks on his conservative credentials. Rush Limbaugh has accused him of "class warfare." The Wall Street Journal editorial page has called him "religious left." And his Republican rivals have escalated their criticism. In a debate on Thursday, Mr. Thompson called Mr. Huckabee a "Christian leader" who would support "liberal economic policies" and "liberal foreign policies."

Just to give a little context, the people quoted above are criticizing Huckabee's populist policies, i.e. policies to help the poor and lower middle class. This type of talk baffles me almost as much as it angers me. How can a religious person criticize another religious person for wanting to help the poor? Which Bible are these people reading that suggests free market principles are what God supports and the poor should be left to fend for themselves? Fortunately, Huckabee's supporters do a pretty good job at rising to the defense:

"Can you imagine Jesus ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised and downtrodden while going after the abortionist?" Mr. Scarborough wrote on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Christian Conservative policy, speaking from a religious doctrine point of view, has long strayed from what seems to me to be the message of the New Testament's teachings. By saying this, I mean to argue with Christians using what they say is the basis for their beliefs. I encourage anyone to read the Gospels and tell me why we shouldn't do more to help those in need.

My hope is that Huckabee can use his appeal to shake up Christian Conservatives. There is some evidence that this is already happening. Maybe sometime soon, the Religious Right can get back their soul and focus on helping the poor.

Better Not Forget Samantha Power

The New York Times has a feature that gives short bios of all the people in Obama's inner circle and candidates for high level positions in his administration. Well, let's hope it's not actually all the people. There is at least one important name missing from this list - Samantha Power!

I really don't want Obama to make an early signal that he doesn't really care much about human rights. I don't want to lose all the good feelings I have so quickly. During the campaign, Obama gave signals that he supports human rights; in the last debate (or was it the second debate?), he made it clear that he thought the US should intervene in genocides / ethnic cleansing. The talk was good, now he needs to show it by giving Samantha Power a high level position. Sure, there are others he could appoint. But Power was a close adviser to Senator Obama and continued on in his campaign. She resigned during the primaries because she called Hillary Clinton a monster. Enough time has passed. President-elect Obama needs to bring her back to the inner circle.

New Conservative Path?

As we continue to digest this election, one of the themes will be the next steps for the Republican Party. Commentators are asking what the party has to change if it wants to get back into power. Generally I wouldn't care about this question so much, because I believe that the most that would happen would be a rebranding of the message and a slight focus on different issues. But in the end, I don't expect much change in the overall philosophy.

David Brooks however gave me something to think about in a column he wrote back in May about the conservative movement in Britain. He describes how it changed after a long period of Tory power. Part of the column talks about the movement's focus on reforming a declining social fabric - which I don't really agree with. What I do appreciate, and hope filters here to the US is the following:

This has led to a lot of talk about community, relationships, civic engagement and social responsibility. Danny Kruger, a special adviser to Cameron, wrote a much-discussed pamphlet, “On Fraternity.” These conservatives are not trying to improve the souls of citizens. They’re trying to use government to foster dense social bonds.

They want voters to think of the Tories as the party of society while Labor is the party of the state. They want the country to see the Tories as the party of decentralized organic networks and the Laborites as the party of top-down mechanistic control.

As such, the Conservative Party has spent a lot of time thinking about how government should connect with citizens. Basically, everything should be smaller, decentralized and interactive. They want a greater variety of schools, with local and parental control. They want to reverse the trend toward big central hospitals. Health care, Cameron says, is as much about regular long-term care as major surgery, and patients should have the power to construct relationships with caretakers, pharmacists and local facilities.

What I like about this is that the debate moves from whether we are part of a social community and therefore need to help each other, to how best to accomplish this. My problem with the argument for much greater individual economic liberty is that underlying that belief is the assumption that we do not take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

I don't have a lot of faith that the American conservative movement will buy into this. I think there is too much individualism spirit in conservatives here. But if it does, I would look forward to the new debates - debates over how best to help each other, instead of whether we should.

No More History Except to Make It

A few weeks ago I discovered American Experience - the PBS series - on Netflix. At risk of further exposing how much of a geek I am, I can say I was ridiculously excited. Right away I rented the episodes on LBJ and Jimmy Carter, with RFK, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Martin Luther King not far behind. Since the election though, my interest has dropped off. I realize at this moment I am much less interested in spending my time in the past. I am less interested in learning about history. I want to live in this moment. I want to be a part of this history. These feelings are a direct result of the hope I feel with an Obama presidency on the way.

An Active Part of History

I didn't really expect to feel proud of volunteering on Obama's campaign. At the time, I felt I needed to do it because the country needed an Obama Presidency so badly. I did it because I had the time and because I knew I would feel guilty if Obama lost and I hadn't done all I could to help.

But I also did it because I was truly inspired by Barack Obama. I think the country needed a Gore presidency in 2000 and a Kerry presidency in 2004. But I didn't volunteer for any of them. And I find it unlikely that I would have volunteered for Hillary Clinton - I would have voted for her, but not campaigned for her.

My volunteer activities only spanned the last few weeks. But during that time I called Obama supporters in New York state asking them to volunteer on the weekend, I called voters in swing states asking who they were going to vote for and hoping to persuade undecided voters to support Obama, I entered data, and during the last four days of the campaign I ran a phone bank in Staten Island, helped with training in Harlem (on Tuesday), and when I had free time I called Obama supporters reminding them to vote.

So as I savor this victory, I know that I contributed, along with many thousands of others, to this victory. This historic moment, this time of real change and hope, came about because 65 million people (53 percent) voted for Barack Obama, but also because of the thousands of people like me who made phone calls, went door to door in swing states, and entered data.

In looking back at this time, I realize I met many great people who are committed to Democratic (liberal) principles and the democratic process in general. I also learned how to be flexible under pressure - to change and improvise when needed. And finally, I learned the pride you can feel by being an active part of history.

Joe the Independent

Now that the Democrats don't need Lieberman - with their strong majority in the Senate (not counting the three races still to be decided) - their is talk of punishing him for his support of John McCain. I find this ridiculous. Lieberman and McCain are good friends and kindred spirits in the Senate - both are moderates and have a history of taking stands against their party. Add on top of that the lack of support Lieberman received from his Senate colleagues when he lost the primary in his Senate race, and it is obvious why he supported McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that Lieberman is definitely more to the right than the rest of the party and can be a thorn in the party's side. And he made some really stupid statements on the campaign trail for McCain - using fear tactics on foreign policy that seemed straight out of the Republican playbook. And he spoke at the Republican National Convention. Okay, I don't have much love for him right now either.

In the end though, I don't think a party should punish someone for a position or person they support. What matters more is votes. And if punishing Lieberman will make him more likely to vote with Republicans on key issues, then I think it is a bad idea. Democrats need to realize that despite large majorities, they will still need to build coalitions. Part of building coalitions is having a big tent party - one that accepts those who don't toe the party line on all issues (the other part is knowing how to court those from the other party - including those who are not treated well by their party).

It may not seem like it right now, but Democrats need Joe Lieberman. How they handle this will be a good indicator of how they plan to handle things for the next two years.

More on the Election

I am still trying to get out all that I feel about this election. Right now, the joy of the victory is giving way to an extreme optimism for the next four (hopefully eight) years. Although part of the excitement is the real change we are getting from Bush and Republican policies, I also know it goes beyond that. I wouldn't be this excited if it had been Hillary or Edwards (or even Richardson). I think Obama's election is transformative - or at least has the ability to be. Not just because it changes the way the world thinks about us, but because it changes the way we think about ourselves.

One of the best parts of Obama's campaign is that it empowered his supporters and asked us to have an active role. And so I hope that the volunteer energy that Obama created doesn't end with the election. We have real problems in this country that can't be fixed through higher taxes alone. On September 11, 2008, both Obama and McCain came to New York for the memorial event and spoke at Columbia University later that night. They both talked about creating a renewed interest in public service. President-Elect Obama's new website, change.gov, has a feature on it called America Serves that describes his plans for increasing volunteer work. I seriously hope that this is a major push of his administration.

The bigger challenge though will not be encouraging more volunteers, it will be forcing the country to sacrifice a bit more. Recently, we have been told to consume our way out of recessions and we have been given endless credit to do so. We are encouraged to live way beyond our means - in both financial and environmental terms. This has to stop. We need to borrow less or else risk another recession like the one we are in now. We need to use less oil if we truly hope to have some independence from the affairs of the Middle East. And we need to consume less, while we also change our sources of energy, if we hope to have an impact on global warming.

I do believe that we elected the right candidate for encouraging more volunteering. I don't know if there is any politician who will seriously ask people to sacrifice. Hopefully I am proved wrong.

Would Wallace Have Voted for Obama?

Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of George C. Wallace and Lurleen Wallace, who both were governors of Alabama, wrote a really good commentary on the CNN website. Basically, her piece says that her father - the most famous advocate for segregation - would have voted for Obama. For those of us who don't know the end of Wallace's story (how he renounced his former positions), the commentary is uplifting.