Why the US President is no mere symbol

Yank JOAN MERKEL SMITH fell upon Inside Out, and has provided a balanced analysis of why the President is no mere symbol but core to reshaping democracy and what it means. The similarities in the differences between Republican/Democrat and Liberal/Labor is uncanny. So, some ideas on the American election, then back to the journalism debate as fuelled by rethinking Hansonism. I've put up on the page an oh-so-timely examination of the fragility of journalism by Eric Beecher, a former editor of The Sydney Morning Herald who delivered the Andrew Olle Memorial Lecture in Sydney last Friday night.

JOAN MERKEL SMITH

If I may - not being an Australian - weigh in with a few insights regarding your Nov. 10 Canberra Inside Out.

The President of the US hasn't quite gone the way of the various present day monarchies that have been politically declawed and have been figureheads now for centuries. The new President, more than just a figure head, will have direct impact on at least 12 areas of domestic and international issues (which I am sending you via attachment). The most important of these areas of course being the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

And please ... please ... not Hillary for president. Watching her and the present inhabitants of the White House for last 8 years, I am sure we can come up with - when the time comes - a better female choice.

12 issues the President can affect (NATIONAL JOURNAL WASHINGTON, Sept 30)

INTERVENTIONISM, MULTILATERALISM

Bush articulates a foreign policy more nakedly assertive of American interests than does Gore. If elected, Bush has promised to reject several multilateral arms control and environmental treaties, and to eschew the deployment of U.S. troops to crises on the periphery of America's vital national interests. Conversely, Gore has been instrumental in crafting for the Clinton Administration a foreign policy that embraces multilateral agreements, is comfortable with international institutions such as the United Nations, and is assertive in using the U.S. military to contain regional crises and ease humanitarian disasters. Both approaches to foreign affairs carry advantages and pose significant risks.

By rejecting widely accepted global arms control efforts, Bush risks alienating close American allies and exacerbating widespread fears overseas about U.S. unilateralism and hubris. Gore's more assertive interventionism, on the other hand, risks overextending an already stretched-thin US military in a series of mini-quagmires that could sap the will of the American public for sustained global leadership.

Bush has promised that his Administration will launch an immediate review of US troop commitments in dozens of countries, with an eye to reducing their role in peacekeeping and other nonessential operations around the world. He intends to persuade the European allies to assume all on-the-ground peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo, a proposal that has strong support in the Republican-controlled Congress but has been repeatedly rejected by European capitals. Bush has also said that he will refuse to send US troops to stop a Rwanda-type genocide or ethnic cleansing unless vital US strategic interests were at stake. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's chief foreign affairs adviser, said: There are other instruments of US influence that can be brought to bear. The governor has a strong sense that US military forces are special, and they should be reserved for those contingencies tied directly to Americas national interests.

Gore, meanwhile, has been even more hawkish than Clinton in his willingness to use US troops to counter ethnic cleansing and quell international crises in such places as Bosnia and Kosovo. Recently, US Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke a close Gore ally who could become Secretary of State has endorsed reforms that would strengthen the United Nations ability to intercede decisively in international crises with peacekeeping troops. The proposal could entail more US troops and more US money. Holbrooke rejects the criticism of congressional Republicans that such peacekeeping missions amount to international social work. The alternative to engagement is noninvolvement, and the consequences of doing nothing are usually that the crisis gets much worse and eventually costs the United States and the rest of the world much more money on the back end, through refugee relief and humanitarian assistance, Holbrooke told National Journal.

On international treaties, Bush would also diverge from Clinton-and-Gore practice. Bush applauded the Senate's rejection last year of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and he has promised to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it cannot be renegotiated with the Russians to allow for the deployment of a massive national missile defense system. Bush also rejects the Kyoto global- warming treaty that Gore supports. Bush advisers characterize the Clinton-Gore team as too eager to sign on to multilateral treaties that run counter to a strict interpretation of American interests. Bush views multilateral agreements and international organizations as tools to exercise American interests and achieve our goals, while Clinton and Gore seem to view them as goals in and of themselves, Rice said.

Conversely, Gore has promised that if elected he will resubmit the CTBT for Senate ratification, fight for Kyoto, and pay the United States back dues to the United Nations in full. Gore is very comfortable with the idea that it is often in the national interest to embrace multilateral agreements and organizations, a senior Gore adviser said. The caveat is that he is willing to reject multilateral agreements when they are not in our interest, as he did with the proposed international land mine treaty. Bush and his advisers, on the other hand, seem to be phobic about engaging with the rest of the world. (James Kitfield)

THE COURTS

Choosing federal judges and Justices is among the most important powers of any President. Its especially so now, because the Supreme Court and many of the 13 federal appellate courts (which have the last word in the vast majority of cases) are closely balanced between liberals and conservatives, and because Bush and Gore have dramatically different plans for them.

Gore has vowed to nominate judges similar to the late Thurgood Marshall, one of the most liberal Justices in history. Bush prefers judges similar to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative Justices since the 1930s. Replacing just one of the more conservative Justices with a liberal, or one of the more liberal Justices with a conservative, could sharply shift the Supreme Court's direction to the left or the right on such politically charged issues as race-based and gender-based affirmative action preferences, abortion rights, gay rights, religion, federalism, federal regulatory power, and campaign finance reform.

The current Supreme Court has three strong conservatives, four liberals, and two moderates who lean to the right on some of these issues (federalism, race, regulation) and to the left on others (abortion rights, gay rights). This means that a liberal Gore appointee could move the Court to embrace race and gender preferences; ensconce abortion rights more deeply than ever; strike down some forms of public aid to religious schools, perhaps including tuition vouchers; expand gay rights and commensurately curb the freedoms of speech and association of groups opposing homosexuality; put an end to the five more-conservative Justices efforts to curb the power of Congress to federalize routine crimes, land-use regulations, and other matters traditionally within the domain of the states; defer to lawmaking by federal regulatory agencies; and smile on campaign finance restrictions that might now be deemed unconstitutional.

A conservative Bush appointee, on the other hand, might well move the Court to sweep away the thousands of federal, state, and local affirmative action preferences that have survived the current majority's hesitant moves to curb them; uphold some restrictions on late-term abortion; bless tuition vouchers for religious schools and other programs affording benefits to religious and nonreligious groups alike; give precedence to the First Amendment rights of private groups to exclude gays and other people with whom they don't want to be associated; further restrict the powers of Congress and federal regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, especially when they affect states rights; and strike down any far-reaching new campaign finance restrictions.

There is not much chance, however, for all the publicity, that Bush could engineer the two-vote swing necessary to end the Court's protection of a virtually unlimited right to abortion during the first six months of pregnancy, especially in light of the Senate's likely rejection of any nominees it considers too conservative (especially on abortion) or too liberal.

Although not one of the Justices has hinted that he or she might step down soon, it seems reasonably likely that one or more will do so in the next four years. The oldest are the liberal John Paul Stevens (an energetic 80), the conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (a sturdy 75-year-old who turns 76 on Oct. 1), the centrist Sandra Day O'Connor (a healthy 70), and the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who is 67 and recovering from colon cancer).

In any event, if history is any guide, the next President will be able to nominate about one judge a week to fill vacancies in the 655 district and 179 appellate judgeships. Sixty-four slots are vacant now. Although less visible than the Supreme Court, the appellate and district courts collectively may exercise even more power. That's because the Supreme Court reviews only about one in every 1,000 decisions by the appeals courts, leaving appellate judges with broad discretion to interpret the law sometimes without clear guidance. Often the result is a liberal-conservative split on contentious policy issues. The mostly liberal Carter and Clinton appointees and more-conservative Reagan and Bush appointees on the 13 appeals courts are close enough in numbers to give the next President an opportunity to engineer either liberal or conservative dominance. (Stuart Taylor Jr)

THE ENVIRONMENT

It's hard to get past the clichés that depict Bush as a slash-and-burn industry apologist and Gore as an industry-hating environmental extremist. Both of those caricatures obscure the two fundamentally different visions of federal environmental policy that either man would be able to implement as President.

Bush embraces a Texas-style federalism that would transfer important decisions on pollution control, land management, and species protection to the states. Bush, whose aides say he never ranked the environment as his top priority, often handled serious pollution problems in Texas with voluntary industry programs. Bush's appointees to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department would be able to use the flexibility built into federal environmental laws to impose similar voluntary, state-driven controls.

Although Bush says he's convinced that the earth is warming, he says he will reject the Kyoto climate change treaty, which requires the United States and other industrialized nations to dramatically curtail the emissions of global-warming gases. Gore and the Clinton Administration support that treaty but have not submitted it to the Senate for ratification, because of congressional opposition to its terms.

Bush's approach to managing federal lands would differ considerably from the Administrations. He has vowed to reverse President Clinton's decision to ban road-building in untouched portions of the national forests. He's also criticized Clinton for further protecting some federal lands by elevating them to national monument status. Congressional aides in both parties question whether Bush could repeal those monument designations without congressional action, but they note that Bush's appointees could rewrite monument management plans to allow logging, mining, and other economic activities. Bush also wants to repair facilities in the nation's national parks rather than add to the inventory of federally protected lands.

Bush advocates giving the states more responsibility for monitoring and preserving endangered species. Rather than having the federal government impose new restrictions on ecologically sensitive lands, Bush proposes creating conservation partnerships between the federal government, states, local officials, and private landowners. He also promises to open more federal lands to the oil industry, although his proposal to allow new oil and gas development in Alaskas Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would require congressional action.

Those policies differ remarkably from the proposals espoused by Gore, who sees the federal government as the chief engineer in the effort to reduce pollution and preserve more ecologically sensitive open lands. He supports Clintons environmental edicts, and, in fact, played a key role in developing many of them. Gore said he would go further as President to preserve land and crack down on polluters. If those actions depend on congressional cooperation, however, Gore's more aggressive programs are likely to be tempered.

In the economic agenda he outlined in September, Gore provided an ambitious list of his federal environmental priorities, which heavily emphasize tax incentives, research initiatives, and regulatory programs, many of which he'd have to work with Congress to adopt. For example, a President Gore would have to negotiate with the Hill to pass his proposed tax credits for homeowners and businesses that buy energy-efficient products. But Gore would be able to block Republicans in Congress from opening new oil development in the Alaskan refuge or off the U.S. coasts.

Gore says he wants the federal government to crack down on pollution coming from the nations oldest coal-fired power plants and from mining operations, and his environmental appointees would have the authority to expand controls in those arenas. They could also follow through on Gores promises not only to stop road-building in untouched portions of the national forests, but also to ban logging in those regions. (Margaret Kriz)

INTERNET SERVICE

One of the few high-technology issues that the next President will decide is whether the Baby Bell phone companies should be allowed to compete in the marketplace as providers of high-speed Internet service. If elected President, Gore would maintain Clinton Administration policy and oppose efforts to favor the Bells through an overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. A President Bush, however, would be more likely to support efforts to strip the Bells of burdensome Federal Communications Commission regulations written into the 1996 law.

Neither candidate, however, has spoken directly about the issue on the campaign trail and each would face tremendous pressure from both inside and outside of his Administration to change his stance.

At issue is a major section of the Telecommunications Act that has discouraged the Bells from building state-of-the-art broadband networks to zip Internet traffic coast-to-coast. The law does this in two ways. First, it forbids the regional Bell operating companies from transmitting voice or data traffic across long-distance boundaries until the FCC deems that the former monopolies have opened their local phone markets to competition. (In the four years since President Clinton signed the bill into law, the FCC has approved just two applications to enter the long-distance market Verizon in New York and SBC in Texas.)

The 1996 law, the Bells say, also discourages the Bells from building billion-dollar networks by requiring them to share key parts of their computers and lines with their competitors.

This year, legislation to unleash the Bells earned the support of a majority of House members and dozens of Senators. But House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, R-Va., a longtime ally of Bell rival AT&T Corp., bottled the measure up in his committee. Bliley is retiring from Congress, however, and that leaves the legislation in the hands of Bell allies, including John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Reps. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., W.J. Billy Tauzin, R-La., and Michael G. Oxley, R-Ohio the three most likely successors to Bliley at House Commerce.

Though powerful foes remain in Congress, supporters believe they can muscle the bill to the President's desk in the next two years. If so, those in the know predict that a President Gore would block the legislation because he credits the 1996 law with igniting the telecommunications revolution. Still, Gore would face intense pressure to sign the bill. Gore has close ties to BellSouth Corp., a strong backer of the bill and one of the Gore campaign's top contributors. Furthermore, one of Gore's closest advisers, Roy Neel, is the head of the Bells lobbying arm, the U.S. Telecom Association. Neel, who has spent years advocating broadband legislation on Capitol Hill, is considered to be a likely choice for Gore's chief of staff.

A President Bush would likely sign the legislation, to the delight of Texas-based Baby Bell SBC. But like Gore, Bush would face intense pressure to reject the bill. AT&T, the bills fiercest opponent, has been one of Bush's top contributors, and the companys chief lobbyist, James Cicconi, was a White House aide in his fathers White House. And the man whom Bush often looks to for advice on telecommunications matters Pat Wood, Texas utility regulator, opposes the broadband measures pending in Congress. (Brody Mullins)

TAX CUTS

With the budget surplus ballooning, tax cuts are almost certain to be enacted after the election. But the next President will have significant influence in determining their size and shape.

The two candidates have starkly different positions on the issue: Bush has embraced a sweeping tax cut of $483 billion over five years, including fundamental changes in the tax rate structure, while Gore has pushed for targeted, Clinton-style tax cuts that he argues benefit the middle class more than Bush's.

If Bush wins, expect him to send a broad-based tax cut proposal to Capitol Hill, where some form of it is likely to pass. Even if the Democrats narrowly control Congress, sufficient numbers of their moderate-to-conservative members conceivably could go along with some broad-based cuts.

If Gore wins, the prospects for a broad-based tax cut are bleak. Even if the Republicans controlled Congress and they tried to send him such legislation, he probably would veto it, just as Clinton has. And the Republicans probably still would not have big enough majorities to override presidential vetoes.

Bush, who argues that everyone deserves tax relief, complains that Gore's proposal requires people to fit into certain categories to have their taxes cut. Bush would replace the current five-rate tax structure of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with four rates of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.

Gore proposes no such across-the-board cut. He contends that the Bush plan is fiscally irresponsible and that the wealthy would be its biggest beneficiaries. Gore would offer taxpayers specific, targeted cuts, such as expanding the Earned-Income Tax Credit by as much as $500 for families with three or more children.

One thing is for certain: As the budget surplus grows, politicians will be more eager to spend at least part of it on tax cuts. Politicians are going to become more comfortable with the surplus, said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. While Republicans and Democrats disagree on the details, they don't disagree over the political benefit of spending the surplus. (David Baumann)

OVERSEAS BAILOUTS

It might be the most important policy difference that won't be discussed in the debates, or any other time during the fall campaign: George Bush and his top advisers envision a very different (and diminished) role for the United States in riding to the rescue of other countries threatened with economic ruin.

This issue may seem a little remote to the interests of most voters, but not if you accept the basic premise behind the Clinton Administration's handling of such bailouts. Most voters see preserving America's prosperity as the central issue of the campaign, and this prosperity was directly threatened by the financial crises in Mexico and throughout Asia, according to President Clinton and his top economic advisers.

They mounted the grandest mobilization of money in history, with hundreds of billions of dollars churning through the banks of a handful of economies that were on the brink of default. No one disputes that the bailouts helped, but a mighty argument continues over whether the rescues were needed, and whether the risk to the U.S. economy from the crises justified the risk to U.S. funds committed to the effort. Some critics argue that the bailouts will cause even more financial turmoil. Bush hasn't had much to say on this topic, but his party and his top advisers have.

The architect of the Clinton approach was Lawrence Summers, who was a Treasury Department undersecretary in 1995 when Mexico's economy was brought to the brink by unwise, short-term borrowing from abroad. Summers, now Treasury Secretary, is the odds-on favorite to continue in that post in a Gore Administration. Gore has had nothing to say on the stump about the Asia financial crisis, but he has been a vocal supporter of bailouts and aid for Russia, and his close ties to Summers indicate that he would continue the Clinton approach to international financial management.

To get a fix on the likely approach of a Bush Administration, it is important to note the recent swing in GOP thinking. Before 1995, Republicans had generally taken an internationalist, pro-Wall Street position on matters of international finance. But after the GOP takeover of Congress, the new Republican leaders were generally suspicious of multilateral cooperation and big-money interests. They convened a commission, chaired by economist Allan Meltzer, that earlier this year issued a report calling for fundamental changes that would end the International Monetary Fund's role as the leader of international rescue efforts.

Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, has long been allied with these efforts. In 1998, in testimony to Congress, Lindsey ridiculed the idea that IMF lending will somehow safeguard U.S. exports and jobs. The role of the IMF in protecting our economy from a breakdown of our banking system is negligible, he said. Lindsey is especially scornful of the role the IMF has played in rescuing any country in crisis. This indemnification of risk, he argued, only encourages unwise behavior in the future.

Lindsey was to be a member of the GOP-appointed Meltzer Commission before his commitments to Bush stole him away. Today, Lindsey says he agrees with much of the commissions recommendations, but denies that they amount to a fundamental change at the IMF. Republican demands for reform, he says, have already resulted in many useful reforms at the fund, such as a promise from IMF leaders to no longer extend short-term loans for 10 or 20 years.

C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, says he doubts that Lindsey or any other IMF hard-liner in the Bush camp would ever follow through on the Meltzer recommendations, advice that would cripple the IMF. No one would risk being blamed for the next crisis, he said. Might this antipathy for bailouts make Bush slow to respond to the next crisis? We wont know till that happens, Bergsten said. (John Maggs)

LABOR POLICY

Though the sharp differences between Gore and Bush over labor policy have received scant attention during the campaign, whoever prevails in the race for the White House will have a large impact on the government's role in the workplace. The next President's appointees to key federal agencies will make far-reaching decisions on contentious issues that range from union organizing to regulations dealing with injuries on the job.

Take the National Labor Relations Board, a powerful agency rarely in the spotlight. Labor activists and business lobbyists are quick to emphasize the NLRBs importance and point out that the new President will nominate three of its five members, as well as its general counsel. Among other duties, those appointees will judge allegations of unfair labor practices and determine whether campaigns by unions to organize workers are successful.

The two political parties are deeply divided over how to run the NLRB. Several key congressional Republicans recently called it troubling that the agency has been overturning precedents in labor-management disputes in order to favor workers. Democrats countered that the NLRB needs more enforcement authority to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who try to form unions.

Efforts by the next President to impose sweeping changes to labor laws probably wouldn't succeed if his party doesn't control both chambers of Congress. But the next President could well issue executive orders that would accomplish big changes.

For example, near the end of his term, President Bush issued an order requiring government contractors with a unionized work force to inform employees of their right to reclaim the part of their dues that unions use to advance political causes. But shortly after Bill Clinton became President, he revoked that order. Should George W. Bush prevail this year, its a good bet that he will reinstate his fathers order. If a large number of workers actually requested such a rebate, unions would lose millions of dollars for galvanizing the grass roots and increasing voter turnout.

The next President will also have considerable influence over the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Business lobbyists often complain that OSHAs intrusiveness in the workplace costs too much without providing a whole lot of benefits. But union representatives are just as adamant that OSHA must be even more vigilant and aggressive in protecting workers from hazards on the job.

Management and unions have been waging a ferocious lobbying battle over ergonomics rules proposed by OSHA to compensate employees who suffer repetitive-motion injuries. Even if Clinton issues the rules in his Administration's final days, Bush could rescind them. That would surely win points with the small-business lobby, which has argued that the rules are too vague and costly.

Another hot-button issue that will turn on the election results involves the Family and Medical Leave Act, which Clinton signed in 1993 after Bush had vetoed it the year before. Should Gore prevail in November, Democrats will push for an expansion of the law, which currently guarantees employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies or for the birth or adoption of a child. Bush probably would be unsympathetic to the proposal, which the business lobby contends would be far too expensive. (Kirk Victor)

MEDICARE

No matter who is President, and no matter which party controls the House and Senate, Washington's elected officials will almost certainly attempt to change Medicare next year if nothing else, to make prescription drugs more affordable for the elderly.

That doesn't mean, however, that Democrats and Republicans will be able to find a compromise to satisfy the political craving for a bill. Indeed, the Medicare proposals from Bush and Gore are so fundamentally different that any end product will probably bear the stamp of whoever wins the presidency.

It's hard to find a middle ground, said Marilyn Moon, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and a Medicare trustee. Ideologically, both sides feel strongly about whether the private sector should be relied upon. Robert Moffit, director of domestic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: "It takes my breath away when people say the Gore plan and the Bush plan are similar. A lot of people, for emotional reasons, would say, "Lets come together". But the fundamental differences are so profound that they're irreconcilable."

The difference is in the design and delivery of the drug benefit. Gore wants to retain the entitlement nature of Medicare, whereas Bush wants to promote competition from private plans.

Bush suggests spending $48 billion over four years to help states assist low-income seniors purchase prescription drugs while he and Congress work on a broad Medicare reform bill. Ultimately, Bush wants to give Medicare recipients the option of using private health plans, some of which would include a prescription drug benefit. Seniors with incomes below 135 percent of the federal poverty level would pay nothing for a prescription drug benefit premium. Seniors with incomes up to 175 percent of poverty would get more-limited assistance, and all other seniors would get help with 25 percent of the cost.

Gore's approach offers the greater level of security historically found in Democratic-backed entitlement programs. He would create a prescription drug benefit for all seniors that would eventually cover half the cost of medicines. Elderly people with annual incomes below 135 percent of the poverty level would pay no premiums or co-payments.

The final shape of any Medicare reform plan would also be influenced by which party controls the House and Senate. The President, though, really does set the agenda, said John Rother, the director of legislation for AARP, the largest seniors advocacy group. As much as Congress doesn't like to admit it, the President is forcing Congress to react to his agenda. And theres little room for compromise when it comes to Medicare reform and prescription drugs. (Marilyn Werber Serafini)

ABORTION

For adversaries in the abortion wars, this presidential election is a winner-take-all contest. Bush and Gore have talked little about abortion, yet the issue divides them more sharply than virtually any other.

Bush is a staunch abortion opponent who as Texas governor has championed restrictions on abortion and family planning, and he wants to amend the Constitution to ban most abortions. Gore, by contrast, strongly backs abortion rights and has vowed to keep the procedure legal.

The policy stakes are unusually high, given that the next President could appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices and scores of federal judges, and will have the power to issue numerous abortion-related executive orders and to sign or veto any abortion-related legislation that Congress sends his way.

The future of a womans right to reproductive choice is at stake in this election, declared Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. We could lose our freedom to choose in one day on Election Day.

Carol Tobias, director of the National Right to Life Committee's political action committee, described the race in equally dramatic terms. Asked whether the Supreme Courts landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion would be overturned during a Bush presidency, she replied: We are certainly hoping that would happen.

Although Bush has pledged to apply no ideological litmus tests to his Supreme Court nominees, he has stated that Roe vs. Wade overstepped the constitutional bounds and has pointed to conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as his model Justices. Gore has made the opposite promise: that a Supreme Court appointee in his Administration would support abortion rights.

However, despite the alarm bells sounded by activists, some experts believe that Bush is unlikely to win the two-vote swing necessary for the Supreme Court to completely overturn Roe, especially because a closely divided Senate could well reject any nominees it considers too conservative.

The next President will still have considerable influence on abortion policy on the Supreme Court and elsewhere. He will wield tremendous judicial appointment power in the states, where about 8 percent of lower federal court judgeships stand vacant, noted Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt.

Not to mention the power of the pen. President Clinton has repeatedly vetoed anti-abortion bills passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, including a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Clinton also issued a long list of executive orders immediately on taking office that reversed abortion restrictions imposed by Presidents Bush and Reagan. These included the so-called Mexico City Policy that banned federally funded overseas family-planning groups from providing abortion-related services, even with their own money. Gore would perpetuate Clinton's many abortion-related executive orders, whereas Bush would reverse them.

Worried abortion-rights advocates have thrown themselves into the political fray more vigorously than in any previous presidential election. In its 84-year history, Planned Parenthood has not involved itself in presidential politics, Feldt said. Yet this year, the organization plans to spend as much as $6 million on ads that contrast the two candidate's positions.

NARAL also ventured into new territory this time, breaking its long-standing policy of remaining neutral in presidential primaries. After Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Bradley questioned Gore's abortion-rights commitment, NARAL took the unprecedented step of endorsing Gore before Super Tuesday. "We really couldnt allow our issue to be squandered negatively, and to be used to divide rather than unite," Michelman said. NARAL plans to spend $5 million on direct voter contact to influence the presidential and congressional elections. (Eliza Newlin Carney)

MISSILE DEFENSE

Both Bush and Gore support a national missile defense system to protect the United States from an accidental or limited attack of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. But the two men are heading in such different directions that American foreign policy could be profoundly affected for years to come, depending on who wins the presidency.

The Clinton Administration has endorsed missile defense only reluctantly after years of pressure from congressional Republicans. Administration officials, even after the President signed a law making it official U.S. policy to deploy a missile defense system as soon as technologically feasible, insisted that the ultimate decision will depend on numerous other factors, including the systems affordability, the threat from rogue states, and the impact of missile defense on arms control agreements with Russia and relations with other countries.

These factors would give a President Gore many outs for not building a missile defense system, or the opportunity to trade it away to achieve a grand bargain with Russia to cut nuclear arms even further. Remember that Gore was one of the few U.S. Senators in the 1980s to master the arcana and theory of arms control. He knows it and believes in it.

After Clinton this summer deferred a decision on missile defense to the next President, Gores caution was evident. The President was right to delay the deployment decision, Gore said, because we need more time to ensure that these technologies actually work together properly, to determine more clearly the costs of the system, and to conduct updated talks with other countries.

The problem for a President Gore would be that it will soon be impossible to be a little bit pregnant on national missile defense. If Gore genuinely believes in missile defense, he'll have to give the green light early in his presidency if the introductory, $30 billion system is to be up and running by 2007 to meet the projected threats from North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

Bush, by contrast, has been unabashed in his support. Even though Clinton has had no success in getting the Russians to accept missile defense, Bush has said that "If elected President, my job would be to convince the Russians and other countries why employing a missile defense system is the right step to take." Bush has threatened to abandon the ABM Treaty if the Russians dont agree. Furthermore, Bush wants a far more ambitious missile defense system than the land-based system of 100 interceptors in the Clinton proposal. His would protect not only the 50 states, but U.S. forces and allies abroad.

A missile defense capable of such broad coverage is a far more expensive proposal than the Clinton plan. Most experts believe that such a system would necessarily have to involve Navy ships and possibly space-based interceptors. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent think tank in Washington, has estimated the cost of such a system at between $100 billion and $120 billion. That approaches the cost of the most expensive government science project in history the Apollo moon shots at $125 billion in todays dollars.

Bush could proceed unilaterally if he had the votes in Congress but such a course entails risks. An expanded missile defense would take additional years of research and development, during which time the Russians and Chinese could either counter the technologies or simply build more missiles to overwhelm the defense. An expansive system could also threaten other priorities, such as a tax cut and the reform of Social Security. (James Kitfield)

GAY RIGHTS

On gay-rights issues, Bush and Gore have track records that suggest they would govern very differently in the White House. As Vice President, Gore has endorsed the Clinton Administration's numerous gay-rights initiatives, including a 1998 executive order that bars discrimination against gays and lesbians in the federal work force. Bush never imposed a similar edict in Texas.

Gore has promised to continue the Administration policy of appointing gays to executive and judicial branch posts. From 1993-2000, President Clinton named more than 150 openly gay and lesbian people to top government jobs. Bush has stated that he would not exclude gays from government posts if they supported his agenda.

During the primaries, Gore said he would try to eliminate the controversial don't ask, don't tell policy for gays in the military. He favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly; during the campaign, he promised to appoint to the Joint Chiefs of Staff only officers who opposed the don't ask, don't tell policy. He has since backed off that statement. Bush supports the don't ask, don't tell policy. In any event, Congress would have to approve any change in policy.

Gore also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a long-stalled measure that would bar companies in the private sector from discriminating against gays and lesbians. The legislation is unlikely to pass until the Democrats regain control of Congress. Bush opposes the legislation.

Neither Gore nor Bush supports the right of gays to marry. But the Vice President has pledged to back efforts to extend married couples' economic, health, and other legal benefits to domestic partners. Most benefits plans, however, are regulated at the state level. As governor, Bush has emphasized traditional values. He has taken no position on the partners issue.

Bush firmly opposes gay adoption. Gore has said adoption decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis without regard to a parents sexual orientation. The states decide adoption policy.

Gay rights increasingly have become a legal issue, and both Gore and Bush could have a major impact on the composition of the Supreme Court, which is narrowly divided on gay-rights issues. Over the next decade, the Court could revisit a decision that upheld state anti-sodomy laws, determine the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt children, and whether federal hate crime statutes unconstitutionally intrude into local matters. (Megan Lisagor and Shawn Zeller)

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The next President will have the opportunity to make his mark on affirmative action through executive orders and judicial and administrative appointments. Gore is a staunch defender of President Clintons "mend it, not end" it affirmative action policy. Bush says he opposes quotas and racial preferences in favor of programs such as the Texas 10 percent plan, which automatically admits high school graduates from the top 10 percent of their class to any state college or university. He has not, however, been especially outspoken about his home state's approach and has even dodged questions about it from the press.

As President, Bush or Gore will have numerous policy-making posts to fill. And the persons selected to head the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, the Office for Civil Rights at the Education Department, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the Labor Department, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will greatly influence how the federal government regulates affirmative action.

President Clinton has named to these posts members of the civil rights community who strongly favor affirmative action. He has also used executive orders to protect affirmative action. When the Supreme Court handed down its Adarand decision in 1995, which weakened affirmative action by stating that racial preferences in contracting are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further a compelling governmental interest, Clinton ordered a broad review and restructuring of agency policies. A Gore President's appointees would probably share the outlook of Clinton's.

Bush, by contrast, could greatly alter federal enforcement of affirmative action by placing anti-preference administrators in major civil rights posts. They would be more likely to address complaints of discrimination against white men, and to regulate against preferences of any kind in universities and the workplace. "It's not like [the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs] would let it be known that its open season for not hiring women and minorities," says Roger Clegg, vice president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative Washington think tank. "But what would be different is that companies are not going to be pressured to discriminate in favor of certain groups."

Odds are that whomever is elected President will nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice. For now, the Court is closely balanced on affirmative action. Depending on which seats are vacated, a Bush or Gore presidency could tip the Court balance in favor of affirmative action or expand the majority against it. The next President will also have the opportunity to fill hundreds of vacancies in the federal district courts and the courts of appeals, scenes of the most intense legal battles over affirmative action.

Presidents Reagan and Bush, by and large, appointed conservative judges who were opposed to affirmative action. The impact of those appointments is still felt today, made evident by the growing number of federal court decisions striking down affirmative action. Clinton's appointments have eroded the conservative majority in the lower courts. If Gore is elected, his appointments could result in a liberal majority, which would provide a possible safeguard for affirmative action. George W. Bush's appointments could further cement the anti-preference sentiment in the judiciary. (Megan Twohey)

MARK ALTMANN, an Australian teaching at the Hong Kong International School

Great column - hope it continues. Still manage to catch your spot with Philip Adams via the internet - unfortunately the decimated Radio Australia doesn't operate in this part of Asia too well. Unfortunately I don't own a short wave radio - the exclusive frequency of choice, oddly enough, throughout this region.

I work at Hong Kong International School - one of the largest International Schools in Asia with an American curriculum and many American staff. The American Studies teacher here at the High School division mentioned the following in conversation.

During the recent Presidential election, a Year 7 teacher at the school took a copy of the New York ballot paper from a staff member here, photocopied it and whited out all the nominees names, putting school subjects in their place. This teacher then got the class to vote, using the ballot paper, for their favourite school subjects.

After the vote was taken, they polled the kids to find out what they voted for - they were to write down their favourite subject rather than use the ballot. The results of the poll was that 60% of the kids didn't vote correctly - their vote didn't reflect what they stated on paper was their favourite subject. The kids were shocked to discover that what they intended to vote for wasn't reflected in their voting form.

The voting systems in the US are not uniform - but even a cursory analysis of the various voting cards and collating methods in a number of states expose the vast chasm between the ideal of how voting should work and the reality of what happens. Confusing and highly complex ballot papers are common throughout the US. After witnessing the performance of a Florida official on CNN talking about 'swinging doors', 'open doors' 'trys' and other odd terms used to describe the various voting cards being examined by hand, it makes one wonder how on earth anyone would even consider the vote to be an accurate reflection of the opinion of the community. The entire process is truly Pythonesque at times.

Also makes me wonder about the method of voting in Australia. I wonder just how accurately the vote of a community reflects their opinion. Perhaps the reason that opinion polls and exit polls (although I don't think they're used in Australia - are they?) vary with the results so widely is because the voting method is so confusing. I also wonder why the situation remains and why steps aren't taken to clarify and simplify the process. The cynic within suggests that perhaps the status quo is driven by self interest of the major parties who benefit.

KEN McALPINE reckons the Bush quotes from a reader in Webdiary November 10 were actually Dan Quayle quotes! These Republicans must go to the same finishing school. He says classic Bush quotes can be found on http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/humor/bush.html and http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp

JOURNALISM and HANSONISM

TIM DUNLOP

Paul Kelly recently chastised John Howard and Kim Beazley for being just about the worst political leaders Australia has ever had. He said it has "been a long time since federal politics saw the combination of such a flawed prime minister and such a weak Opposition leader." Kelly argued that Howard was "the most knee-jerk, poll reactive, populist prime minister in the past 50 years." He described Kim Beazley as "in some ways, a more serious populist than Howard."

You see, populist is about the worst thing someone like Kelly can call a person in public life. And when I say someone like Kelly I mean that sort of commentator who sees the role of those in power (or their intellectual courtiers) as being to dictate from that position of power on how things should be done. Writing in 1999 Kelly said "politicians must recognise their task is to deliver better government. That means working out what the state should do and what it should not do - and teaching the public those limits." No sense here that the public might want to contribute something to the understanding of those limits; not the slightest hint that they might have some idea themselves of what they want the politicians to do.

Kelly belongs to a long line of thinkers who assume that there are those who know how to run things and that it is their role to do just that. Of course, they claim to do it in a benevolent way, not in a dictatorial way, and with everyone elses best interests at heart. That is part of their special talent. These are Platos philosopher kings; they are Julien Bendas clercs; they are Walter Lippmanns Governors; these special people who alone of all the citizenry can transcend their own personal and sectional interests and rule and decide to our mutual benefit.

Yeah, right.

Its pretty hard to see how democracy can work at all without some form of populism. Majority rule seems to be one of the tenets of this most populist of political systems, if I remember Politics 101 correctly. So it might be a tricky thing to draw the line between populism and majority rule. Still, there is a distinction to be made between majority rule and majoritarianism. Thus there may also be a distinction to be made between false populism and what I will call deep populism.

False populism might be described with reference to National Party MP, De-Anne Kelly. During the long debate over the Wik legislation and the so-called ten point plan, Kelly was heard to say that she was in parliament to do the bidding of those who elected her. If she had the slightest inkling of the notion of democratic representation she would never be able to say this. The fact is, De-Anne Kelly and all those in parliament, are there to represent their electorates, whether the individuals within them voted for them or not. The view that says an elected parliamentarian will only represent the views of those who actually voted for them is an example of majoritarianism and the sort of false populism this implies.

It is this sort of false populism that Paul Kelly means, I think, when he accuses political leaders of being poll driven. But if Howard and Beazley and their ilk are populists, then Kelly is an authoritarian. Well intentioned no doubt (like the road to hell) but authoritarian nonetheless. Neither alternative is conducive to democratic government.

What we are really talking about here is the correct relationship between elites and the rest of the population. As John Ralston Saul has said, "the principal function of an elite is to serve the interests of the whole. They may prosper far more than the average citizen in the process. They may have all sorts of advantages. These perks wont matter so long as the greater interests are also served. From their point of view, this is not a bad bargain."

It certainly isnt. The trouble is, elites are, well, elite. Their contact with the whole is limited and often mediated, generally by polling companies; it is often theoretical. And no amount of good will or good thinking will bridge that gap. There have to be equitable institutional structures put in place that force elites and average citizens to deal with each other. Simple representative democracy in such a plural polity will no longer work. But what does it mean for them to deal with each other?

Well, it does not mean endless polling. It does not mean token media-driven listening tours of regional Australia. Such things tend to lead to false populism, the sort of decision-making that panders to a perceived majority, or an artificially constructed one, rather than decision making that is genuinely in the best interests of the nation. It leads to the sort of arbitrary, on-the-run policy making that saw, for example, the Prime Minister provide seemingly special treatment to Hunter Valley textile workers. We need deep populism.

Que?

Lets take the example of reconciliation. John Howard is wearing a lot of flak for failing to lead on this issue. Probably in this more than any other field, he is seen to be poll-driven. And as recent polling for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) suggests, significant numbers of people dont want to apologise and think that we should just get on with things. As a newspaper headline had it, Were a nation of John Howards. Predictably, Paul Kelly knew the answer: it was for "national leadership to influence a confused and ignorant public opinion."

But rather than lay the blame entirely at the PMs feet, as those on the left tend to do (and make no mistake, he deserves little short of contempt for his attitude to reconciliation), or blame "ignorant public opinion" as Kelly does, I wonder if some blame doesnt also belong with CAR itself. My attack here is not upon the individuals on the committee but on the process. Although the members speak regularly of the peoples movement associated with their work and their extensive consultation, it is now clear they have achieved neither. There is a massive gulf between the views of those on the committee and the broader citizenry.

Deep populism seeks to transcend the shortcomings of such processes.

When CAR points to the 10,000 people it has spoken to at over 300 venues, it largely means it has spoken to members of the very many (and heartening it is) members of local reconciliation committees. In other words, they are speaking to the converted. However, it is the people who dont join such groups - out of antipathy or laziness or lack of interest or time - that CAR (and the rest of us who believe in reconciliation) must contact. And the only effective way to do this is to put such people on the committees. Kick off Ray Martin and enlist Shane Paxton.

Deep populism provides equity of participation and deliberation between the people and the elites. Despite the continued and persistent cries for leadership and education, these are not the answers. These solutions reek of elitism, of rule from above, of imposition. The only way to lead and to educate is by inclusion. But inclusion is not just about going to town halls, or organising rallies and signings of electronic petitions: these things are important but they will tend to attract the already convinced. Inclusion - or more accurately, deliberation - is about putting those ordinary people, the unconvinced citizens on the actual committees. Only with involvement at this level of the process will there be any ownership of it by people other than the elites and the true believers. And it is only through this sort of ownership that real education will begin: no-one can get an education and you cant really teach anybody anything. People can only learn. And for people to learn they have to be involved.

So we have to put ordinary citizens on the committees. And if we have to pay them to be there, so be it. A useful model of the sort of thing I have in mind is the jury system. We need a legislative jury of our peers involved in the formulation of policy and the writing of reports that inform government decisions.

The difference between false populism and deep populism is the difference between a citizen initiated referendum (CIR) and a deliberative poll. The CIR forces people into a yes or no option, when we all know that nearly anything worthy of a referendum in the first place is more complicated than that. Once you reduce a complex issue to a dichotomy, the process is open to endless and mindless manipulation based on overly simplistic but momentarily compelling arguments. And if anyone doubts this, then just look at the Republican referendum: a complex issue forced into a yes or no decision where yes didnt really mean yes and no didnt really mean no.

Deliberative polling (and adaptations of it), on the other hand, recognise the complexity of issues and provide a useful means for addressing it. They achieve a more equitable relationship between the experts and the citizens, with both confronting each other as equals, not as opposites. Just as there can be, as Kant had it, no experts on morals, there can be no experts on ends in a democracy. Ends, the modus vivendi, is about debate and ultimately compromise. But it has to come from a basis of equal participation, access and respect. No good teacher approaches his or her students as being ignoramuses just because they dont share the same level of knowledge. And no reasonable student thinks of a good teacher as being an elitist wanker. Superior knowledge and the elitism it implies need not, therefore, be thought of as an uncrossable gulf. It is simply the terrain where we all have to operate.

Thus committees such as CAR have to be redesigned along deliberative lines, something like the recent deliberative poll conducted prior to the Republican referendum. Under this model, a representative sample of the population is chosen to deliberate over a particular topic. They are given time to read material and then are brought together to discuss amongst themselves their views and concerns. The experts and intellectuals, who are chosen from all sides of the given argument or topic, are then available to answer specific questions from the citizens. The citizens then vote for various propositions.

Now in the case of most applications of this technique, the object has merely been to poll those involved. However, there is no reason (money, I know, money) that this function could not be expanded into something along the lines of an adjunct to the various parliamentary committees that deliberate on policy matters - the deliberative poll could become a legislative jury that could produce its own report and recommendations. It could then be one of the factors government considers when forming policy.

And if you want somewhere to start with legislative juries, then why not connect it the apparently popular work-for-the-dole scheme? Instead of mutually obliging unemployed citizens to dig ditches, paint stones or plant trees, have them involved in discussing reconciliation, or the GST or mandatory sentencing. Mutually oblige their intellects as well as their muscles and pay them for their thinking. We have a pool of otherwise unused talent going begging, perfectly qualified for this sort of deliberative work - perfectly qualified because they are citizens.

As Robert Connell has it: "Equality without a practice of participation remains a myth; participation without equality is endlessly vulnerable to corruption." If you want your democracy to work properly then you have to address the relationship between the elites and the citizens. And the moment you find yourself saying that what we need is more education, stronger leadership, or another poll to investigate what people really think you should bite your tongue and remember the look in Pauline Hansons eyes.

DAVID SVENSON

Why not have a go at Oz public company directors. They are even worse than the pollies! Most of them have their snouts too deeply in the tough to care for their shareholders & you colleagues in the AFR & other Finance media have failed miserably in this regard - I suppose that they can't be blamed for being scared of their own directors.

MARGO: Right on. This was one of Jack Robertson's key points - now that the public sector has outsourced itself out of real power, we have to scrutinise the private powerful just as strongly as politicians. If not more so. We need more poltcial reporters focusing on the politics of business from a reader's perspective.

MICHEAL (THOMAS) STANLEY

The other day I wrote to the diary drawing ethics, journalism, perks and the execrable Senator Newman and Tony Abbott together with a quick mention of One Nation. I did that without knowing of your long piece on the possible interpretations of Hansonism. I did that without knowing of your long piece on the possible interpretations of Hansonism. I now want to say a bit about that, a bit about the work you are doing, and a bit about the responses.

First, Margo, you should be congratulated for this forum. It sits somewhere between Media Watch, intelligent debate and the Press Council. It is a true forum and your founding of it shows that true creativity, and initiative, can still be a major part of journalism and not reserved for the tired hack and traitors of the PR world. You also showed guts and creativity in delving deeply into the phenomenon that was Hansonism. It now simmers, unnamed and leaderless, across this nation. It is in the suburbs and in the bush.

In some ways this is a mea culpa because I, like some other correspondents especially Jack, have a deep unease about journalism at the moment. It is imperative you be shielded from that criticism by the very mechanism of providing this conduit for those feelings. To that extent you are spared from what follows.

Personally, I vote Green. My sister is rusted-on Labor, and immune to my argument that a rusted-on Labor (or any rusted-on vote) is inherently, and by definition, a conservative vote. If Pauline Hanson has effected a rust off on all sides then she was a liberating force, albeit rather too radical right wing for this voter. Nevertheless, votes are up for grabs that previously were not. All hail Pauline for that. But where are the votes going and why?

Clearly the Coalition's desire to stockpile money, and not free it for petrol or other relief, is a sign that among the Conservatives nothing has changed and that pork-barrelling will be at a new all-time obscene high come next federal election. Pauline has work still to do.

I cannot vote Labor, Margo, I want to but I cannot. Gough Whitlam, a hero of mine in some ways, despite terrible governance for much of his two short terms, is by virtue of being rusted-on Labor, a Conservative. He votes Labor out of tribal loyalty to a party that is imperilling Medicare, supports mutual obligation (surely the lack of sufficient jobs to go around indicates that capital has failed in its most basic obligation). Labor calls an hours work a week an employed person. To buck Labor is to be called a rat. Not to buck Labor is to threaten the democratic process. Kim Beazley, a nice decent fellow, is hopelessly lost and a prisoner of the rat class. Everything is so debased a third force must rise and it ain't the Democrats. They stand for nothing but pragmatism at the old end and petulance at the young end.

I still say the real stories come from the ruled not the rulers - and a Canberra Press Gallery, by its very moniker, indicates that that is not understood. The best journalistic despatches always come from behind enemy lines. That means the people; unless the Government is the enemy and you are behind their lines, and enjoying their hospitality, and not disguised as a spy. That would beg the question of what are you and your colleagues doing there? I also believe that these responses should be shorter than some and not a forum for frustrated writers.

IAIN CLACHER, Brisbane

As a Queenslander, I've been held captive by the Courier-Mail, the Murdoch monopoly's middle-brow broadloid saturated with op-eds direct from the Institute of Public Affairs. I offer prayers of thanks for SMH Online and your webdiary, both of which have helped save me from certain cerebral dystrophy.

I wouldn't fret over any Courier-Mail "critique" of your 1998 Hanson adventure. Courier-Mail critiques are as credible as Mal Colston's medical certificates.

What a wonderful wide-ranging essay you've written on Hansonism, media, "elites" and the mad challenges marketisation (misleadingly branded "globalisation") have presented us all.

Like so many others who spun-out so severely over the racist and "redneck elements of One Nation, I chose to ignore the positive challenges to the received political and economic wisdom her party also represented. At the time it seemed so much more important to slay the racist, homophobic andn populist "neo-Nazi" dragon we were led to believe it solely to be.

What a shame we only saw its black cloud of hatespeak but not its silver lining of rupture. As has been said: the media doesn't have to tell you what to think, they only need tell you what to think about.

Around that time, the dominant media analysis told us Howard's 1996 victory was a rejection of "political correctness". Some analysts were so keen to dumb down the populace they also claimed it to be a rejection of the "big picture". We were told the same causes underpinned Hansonism, a movement spawned during that very election.

But I think more importantly, both Howard's win and Hanson's rise reflected a frustration with economic rationalism, the ideology of dog-eat-dog market supremacy nowadays re-branded and sold back to us as "globalisation".

How frustrating it was to hear the cries of "d'oh" that election (and Mardi Gras) night in March 1996 as I rightly predicted to my first-time-voter flatmates that Howard's Liberals wouldn't deliver them from economic rationalism, but deliver it in spades.

I hope most of your readers are as depressed and disgusted as I by Robert Gottliebson's claim in Thursday's Australian that it doesn't really matter who finally wins the US elections because real power already lays with the markets. Only if we let it be so.

I hope readers are just as saddened by the Murdoch empire's explicit insistence that Bush the Buffoon was preferable to Gore the Bore because the latter might insist trade regulations take human rights and environmental concerns into consideration. God forbid we dare mess with the sacred and infallible majesty of the market!

Are readers as sickened as I by this Weekend Australian's demand that Gore concede defeat despite the closeness of the vote, the absentee ballots still in transit and the plethora of electoral irregularities now coming to light? Surely, it is ludicrous to suggest the US will plunge into anarchy unless dubious Dubya is declared winner forthwith.

At least this drama has finally taught me the hitherto incomprehensible complexities of the cockeyed US electoral system. Frankly, federal systems will always suck until the states are replaced by municipalities.

But most frighteningly, this election tells me that in the age of eight econd soundbites, conflict-obsessed journalism, myopic focus groups and idiotic ideology invisibilised by and concentrated into a one letter logo (W), democracy may already be too feeble to stand up to big money.

I can at least take solace in Australian rules. Under our laws, I could have voted Nader and directed my preferences to Gore. At least under our system we can leave the polling booth with both our idealistic convictions and realistic expectations intact. At least we're not forced to settle for the lesser of two evils unless we choose to lower the voice our vote gives us. At least the Hanson Right, Labor Left, small-l Libs, agrarian socialist Nats, Dems and Greens still seem to believe that while we do live in an economy, it is folly to forget we also live in a society stuck on a fragile and solitary planet.

When the Berlin Wall rightly fell to people power, we were told the collapse of communism was "the triumph of democracy", but after only a decade, it is now becoming painfully clear to so many of us that unbridled greed was the real victor.

Surely the future of humanity lays in its soul, not its spin.

REON BAVINGTON

Can I just say first up that as far as the state of play in journalism is concerned, I actually think things aren't so bad. I am always confident that, on any given day, a Margo Kingston, a Robert Manne, a John Lyons, or a Laura Tingle (to name but a few) is applying her/him self with intelligence, experience, guts and passion to carrying on the great tradition of quality Australian journalism by producing a story that I and other Australians need to know. Further, Canberra Inside Out is a very exciting innovation from my point of view, because it provides me with an opportunity for easy and timely engagement in a two way political conversation which simply did not exist in the past.

My suggestion is that you invite your readers to nominate important issues that we need to address to advance Australia fair, and set aside an ongoing forum for debate on them. Too often, our day-to-day political debate rushes lemming-like from one "crisis" to another, at the expense of underlying issues which have greater long-term significance. Such a forum would allow the debate on underlying issues to acquire more insight, understanding, and maturity.

I would nominate reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and secession from England as two top issues, because I think that that they are necessary prerequisites to our having the right and the confidence to take the place in the world that we have already earned in so many other ways.

There is a great deal in our past and present that we can be truly proud of. Whether it be the courage and bravery of Australian men and women in the two world wars, or our achievements in such fields as architecture, art, literature, music, science and sport, Australia has proven time and again that, when the chips are down, it can deliver on the world stage. Yet, as many observers have noted, there is always this lingering self-doubt about our place in the world, and I put it down largely to these two items of unfinished business.

We are still a colony, and we still haven't apologised to the people whose land we took to create it. We can and should resolve these issues.

ALAN KERNS, Buchan Point, Queensalnd.

I am a sometimes listener of Phillip Adams' LNL, and have listened with sympathy to many of your contributions over the last few years. What I like most about you is that you take your responsibilities as a journalist very, very seriously. My impression is that journalism - perhaps even democracy - is for you a vocation. The world is not a happy place for democrats [small-d democrats, I mean, not Democrats].

I was intrigued to hear when listening to LNL a day or so ago, that you have started to run, while still with Fairfax, a website. Via LNL's website, I visited yours, and obtained your e-mail address.

From my brief perusal of your website, I see you have the pot simmering away quite nicely, with scope for readers to contribute their views, and for a vigorous dialogue to take place, about particular issues. From the resources I imagine you have at your disposal, that seems like a really good effort.

Before I raise the issue that is the purpose of this e-mail, I should give you some insight as to where I am coming from, but I will keep that very brief. I retired from the paid workforce in early 1998, and have spent much of my time and energy since then trying to sort out my confusions and unhappinesses about the world.

It seems very clear to me that the civilization that we are part of, and which is to a great extent already globalized, will sooner or later self-destruct unless it can be brought under genuinely democratic government. A couple of important assumptions underlying this conclusion are:

1.there has not yet been a genuine democratic government anywhere at any time; and

2.most people - if given the opportunity - would choose to live a benevolent life, i.e. a life characterized by self-restraint in favour of the common good.

Genuine democracy would in no way be an easy option. A genuine democracy could only exist if:

* a majority of a society's citizens were vitally interested in the issues of government;

* a majority of a society's citizens were active in the politics of government;

* a majority of a society's citizens had ready access to any and all viewpoints about any and all issues of government;

* all minority interest groups were directly represented in the society's parliaments

* the elected representatives of all interest groups had a parliamentary vote accurately proportional to the numbers of citizens who elected them; and

* the elected parliamentary representatives were recallable and dismissable by the citizens who elected them.

You may well be thinking: 'Not another utopian twit!'; and I wouldn't blame you for that. Nonetheless, I stand by these conditions as pre-requisites for a genuine democracy to exist and be sustainable. We are, of course, a long, long way from meeting any of these conditions. The common people of modern societies are thoroughly divided - alienated not only against our rulers [the unelected powers-that-be] but also against each other.

How does all this relate to MK and her website? Well - correct me if I am mistaken - but I see your website as a first step by a journalist with a passionate desire to serve the public, to inform the public, to spark serious public debate about important issues. The biggest obstacle in your way is that the public is not fit to take an interest in, let alone advantage of, what you are offering. So deep is the alienation and demoralization of the public, that most of us will never even know that you exist - we will be too busy indulging in escapism via substance abuse [e.g. alcohol] or fantasy [e.g. junk TV].

Nonetheless, as the old Chinese proverb says, the longest journey starts with a single step. It is not my intention to discourage you. Quite the contrary; I want to encourage you - with regard to the longer journey, as well as the first step.

Let us say, for argument's sake, Margo, that your website with Fairfax looked like taking off and succeeding as a medium for searching debate on issues fundamental to our way of life. The powers-that-be would see such a venture as a threat to their interests, and they would see to it that the threat was eliminated. If an editor were to be daring enough to back you up, the editor would be removed. My guess is that intervention would occur quite early. If worst came to worst, the advertizers would go on strike, and Fairfax would go under.

The point I am getting at is that - in my opinion - no privately owned medium of public information will ever favour the common good when that competes with the interests of its owners. As far as I can see, private profit and the common good are natural antagonists. I do try to be realistic rather than pessimistic. I can't help it if reality is so grim. Brings to mind a one-liner I think I heard on LNL: 'a pessimist is just a well-informed optimist'.

OK, so all this preamble leaves us in a quandary. If privately owned media can never be expected to serve the common good; and government owned media can also never be expected to serve the common good [the underlying assumption being that our governments are primarily answerable to the unelected powers-that-be, and hence no government agency can ever be expected to serve the common good]; then what on earth can we do?

Another assumption: genuine democracy can only ever be won from the bottom up. This includes any medium of communication serving the common good. What do you think of the possibility of forming a community based corporation - involving journalists, and subscribing members of the public, with a view to establishing a website where all viewpoints are allowed comprehensive expression? ALL viewpoints would have to allow extremists their say, including Nazis and the like. One Nation, Pauline Hanson, and the like would have to be allowed free access and free expression, and not subjected to the disgraceful persecution meted out to them in their heady early days by the mainstream media.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of Pauline's policies, but the way she was treated by most of the press was flagrantly anti-democratic. I think the powers-that-be were frightened of her as a loose cannon who, amongst other things, would eventually have turned her attention to some of their cozy and corrupt arrangements with Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

Anyway, Margo, what do you think of the possibility of a community-based internet public information facility?

DON ARTHUR

What would happen if the Hansonites stopped being racist? (Webdiary, November 10) I know your

question was rhetorical but I couldn't resist thinking out loud. How

about this (far fetched) thought experiment:

Pauline Hanson calls a TV network and says she wants to apologise to

indigenous people. She's going to say "SORRY." She wants to do it on

their current affairs show and it will be an exclusive. But she insists

on some ground rules -- there are other things she wants to say and she

wants them to go to air too.

The interview goes ahead. Hanson tells the interviewer that she is sorry

for the hurt she caused Aboriginal people, she doesn't blame those who

will never forgive her but she wants to make amends. She talks about

visits to Indigenous communities, about the stories she was told, about

stolen children and families torn apart by bureaucracy and arrogant

politicians who wouldn't listen or understand. "I listened" she says,

"and that's why I'm here now." (tears and sniffles)

Hanson goes on to say that out of anyone she's heard recently Noel

Pearson makes the most sense. People have a right to take responsibility

for their own lives. And passive welfare is destroying white communities

too. What we all need is the right to earn a decent living. She talks

about truckies, owner operators who are dying on the roads because big

companies refuse to pay decent rates. Crops that rot on the trees

because of imports and multinational companies who buy from whoever is

the most desperate for cash. She praises Dick Smith and wants to know

why big supermarkets won't stock Australian owned brands.

She says the media set out to divide Australians. To make sure all the

little people are too busy fighting each other to stand up to the

politicians and big business. "We need to be One Nation".

After the broadcast Hanson makes herself available for interviews.

However she announces that she will be leaving all comments on

indigenous policy to One Nation's new spokeswoman on Indigenous issues

-- an Aboriginal Australian. She makes only one more comment about the

issue, she calls on John Howard to say sorry.

What happens next?

TITBITS

1. IAIN CLACHER'S ideas for renamed ABC programs:

Four Corners to One (Capital-C Conservative) Corner

Late Night Live to Late Night Liberal (with Christopher Pearson)

Life Matters to Life Insurance? Indispensible!

Nurses to Evil Militant Unionists of the Medical Industry

Media Watch to World's Finest Media Baron Brown-nosers

Backberner to Burning Bolsheviks

Australian Story to Neo-Colonial Tory

Quantum to QuadRANT

Compass to Compulsory Christianity

The Arts Show and Arts Today to Painting By Number-Crunchers

Rage will take a sedative and become Comfortable and Relaxed

Adult Education will be far too expensive