The Progressive Imperative

10.12.01

by David Englin

As the United States prepared for war in June 1941, American leaders feared that strikes and demonstrations might erupt in response to widespread hiring and employment discrimination at plants producing vital military supplies. In an effort to forestall potential disruptions in military production, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 prohibiting government contractors from employment discrimination based on race, color or national origin. The order was the first federal act ever taken to prevent employment discrimination by private companies -- and it was done for the sake of national security.

Many liberals have worried about the transforming effects that wartime have on the political debate -- that government will pay insufficient heed to civil liberties or use excessive military force in the rush to retaliate. But as this example shows, the national security imperative during wartime has also advanced progressive policies that have, to varying degrees, improved the lives of millions of people and even transformed American society. The examples are myriad.

Wartime Progress

When the United States did enter World War II, for the sake of national security, the government convinced American industry to permit and encourage women to serve the war effort in previously barred roles. Inspired by Rosie the Riveter, millions of women went to work in America's factories, leaving their traditional social realm to sustain the American industrial machine that out-armed the Axis. In doing so, they freed millions of American men to fight in Europe and Asia. Congress authorized the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps and the U.S. Navy created the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, or WAVES, to fill non-combat positions in the Army and Navy, freeing male soldiers and sailors to fill combat roles. The Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs, who tested and ferried every type of aircraft in the American arsenal, largely dispelled the notion that women pilots couldn't handle physically demanding military airplanes. By the time American men returned from the war, there was no longer any question about whether women were capable of working at jobs traditionally held by men. It was another two decades before the first legislation against sex-based wage discrimination, but the relative liberty and equality American women enjoy today are rooted in policies established for the sake of national security during World War II.

The Cold War was already raging by the time the Soviet Union launched the world's first satellite in October 1957. Not only did Sputnik represent Soviet space superiority and the threat of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, but America's failed attempts to launch its own satellites signaled to many a general weakness in U.S. science and technology. Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act of 1958. As stated in the act, its purpose was for "Washington to help develop as rapidly as possible those skills essential to the national security." The act was the most important federal legislation on education in nearly a century. It more than doubled federal education spending, addressing elementary, primary, secondary and higher education. Its provisions even included funding for federal student loan programs, graduate fellowships, and capital construction for education -- all for the sake of national security.

These examples demonstrate how national security can build political support for policies that otherwise would be too contentious or would lack attention and priority. In each case, national security was the true impetus for the policy and not merely a rationalization for a progressive program. However, in each case, governing for the sake of national security also advanced progressive policies that improved the people's lives. The current war on terrorism could reasonably provide similar opportunities in the areas of health care, gay rights and the environment.

Universal Health Care

As officials in Florida investigate a deadly anthrax case and public health officials warn of biological terrorism that could come in the form of highly communicable diseases like smallpox, it's time to reconsider a health care system that fails to reach about 38.7 million Americans, including more than 8.4 million children. To protect ourselves from biological attacks, we need a health care system that reaches every person in our borders.

According to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, his department is now focused on bolstering the ability of state and local public health systems to detect and respond to biological attacks. America needs well-trained doctors, nurses, emergency responders and administrators and an efficient, nationally connected tracking and monitoring system. But even the most efficient system for detecting and responding to a biological attack requires every person in our borders to have easy access to health care. The early symptoms of smallpox look like the flu. Maybe the lethargic-looking homeless woman is just tired, or maybe she's a chink in America's biological armor. Without easy access to health care, before anyone knows she has smallpox she could infect many others at the train station or street corner where she spends her days, spreading the disease to millions of Americans in a matter of days. The same could be true for that low-income father who can't afford health insurance but earns too much to qualify for Medicaid.

If that homeless woman or that working-poor man had ready access to health care, then our public health officials would be immensely more likely to detect a smallpox attack early. Additionally, any response -- things like quarantine combined with targeted vaccinations -- would be more effective because health care providers and public health officials would have more accurate medical data on the local population. National security demands that each and every person in America's borders have easy access to health care; it just so happens that this also would create a socially just system of universal coverage.

Gays in the Military

Now that we've begun what President Bush says will be a protracted war on terrorism, we need every fully qualified soldier we can get. Even before the events of September 11, the military was struggling to recruit and retain members of the armed forces. Now that we're at war, the president has authorized the involuntary activation of up to 50,000 members of America's reserve forces, and the secretary of defense has authorized the heads of the military departments to invoke "stop-loss" authority, involuntarily forcing thousands of service members to stay in uniform beyond their contracted terms. Both of these measures create personal and financial hardships for the sake of national security. At the same time, we refuse entry to, and discharge from the service, otherwise well-qualified volunteers who are openly gay. Therefore, it's time to consider allowing openly gay men and women to serve in our armed forces.

On September 11, two openly gay men reminded us that gays and lesbians are as capable as anyone else of displaying the courage, discipline and selflessness we require of our troops. Mark Bingham, a passenger on United Airlines flight 93, was one of several passengers who fought back against the terrorists, and who sacrificed himself to protect hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of people on the ground. And openly gay Father Mychal Judge, the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department, was killed while administering last rites to a fallen firefighter at the World Trade Center.

The U.S. military itself acknowledges that nothing about being gay makes a person unfit to serve, but it requires gay troops to actively hide their sexual orientation and to refrain from any form of homosexual conduct. Requiring gay troops to hide and suppress that aspect of their identity rejects individuals who already have the courage and the integrity to be openly gay in a straight world -- and who therefore demonstrate the very qualities America looks for in its soldiers. The arguments against integrating openly gay troops into the U.S. military are essentially the same arguments that were used against African Americans until the late 1940s and against women until the 1970s. Just as pressing military personnel needs opened the door for African Americans and other minorities during World War II and for women during the Vietnam era, we should begin integrating openly gay troops into the U.S. Armed Forces so we have the troop numbers we need to protect the nation.

The Environment

The structure of America's power grid favors terrorists and other attackers. American power companies rely on relatively few generation plants and a vast transmission network, so a few strikes on the right power plants and transmission nodes could knock out electricity to millions of homes and businesses. It's time to consider moving from the present system of large, centralized power plants, each serving millions of people, to a system of small, local power generators that serve individual buildings or communities.

A system of small, dispersed generators would make it extremely difficult for terrorists to cut electricity to more than a few hundred people, and the kind of coordinated attack that would be required to knock out power to large swaths of the country would be next to impossible. While large, consolidated power plants might be easier to defend, an attack on a small, local generator would affect so few people that it would be more of an inconvenience than a security threat, making an attack less likely in the first place.

It just so happens that restructuring America's power grid for the sake of national security would also be better for the environment. Locating generators in close proximity to homes and businesses instead of shunting them to places without the political capital to fight them would force people to face the pollution-generating aspects of power use in their own backyards. That, in turn, would create strong incentives for ultra-efficient electrical devices and clean generation technologies. The long transmission distances of the present system mean that, on average, two-thirds of energy produced is lost before it reaches its final point of use. Power companies must overproduce electricity to compensate for this loss, resulting in burning more coal and oil than otherwise would be necessary. Using many smaller generators close to where the electricity is used would mean far less electricity lost in transmission, requiring less total energy production and producing less pollution.

It remains to be seen if the new focus on national security in post-attack America will be significant enough to allow for the kinds of measures outlined here, but leaders on the left should not fear this political environment. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, both sides of the aisle have already supported what some consider to be drastic, but necessary, legislation. The lesson from history is that, harnessed properly, the national security imperative can be a powerful force for progress.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 13, 2001

Answers

A little good mixed in with a whole lot of bad.

Shall we call "progessivism" by its real name?

Socialism. Communism. Marxism.

Take your pick.

-- zipperpull (*@*.@), October 13, 2001.