Paul Krugman reflects on what worked on the government policy front this year:
Maybe I’m just projecting, but Christmas seemed unusually subdued this year. The malls seemed less crowded than usual, the people glummer. There was even less Muzak in the air. And, in a way, that’s not surprising: All year Americans have been bombarded with dire news reports portraying a world out of control and a clueless government with no idea what to do.
Yet if you look back at what actually happened over the past year, you see something completely different. Amid all the derision, a number of major government policies worked just fine — and the biggest successes involved the most derided policies. You’ll never hear this on Fox News, but 2014 was a year in which the federal government, in particular, showed that it can do some important things very well if it wants to.
The Denver Post, meanwhile, looks at the failure of Congress to act on transparency and FOIA laws:
The ability to solicit information from government officials — particularly when it comes to material showing them in a less-than-favorable light — is a fundamental way of keeping tabs on those in power.
So it was disheartening to see Congress fail to pass a bill during the lame-duck session that would strengthen the federal Freedom of Information Act.
That the bill had bipartisan support and was endorsed by 70 organizations that advocate for accountability and transparency in government only makes that failure worse.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
The Washington Post analyzes lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak in Africa:
Speed is of the essence. The global response to Ebola was tardy, in part because 24 previous outbreaks of the virus since 1976, mostly in remote locations, were contained, so it was assumed that this one would also be extinguished quickly. But when Doctors Without Borders began to warn in April that something different was unfolding — that Ebola was getting out of control in West Africa, where it had not previously struck — the call was not heeded.
Linda Killian examines Millenial engagement in politics:
[W]hen it comes to politics and national policy they have relatively little clout because most of them don’t reliably vote and aren’t major political contributors. These young adults have voluntarily checked out of a political system they consider corrupt and dysfunctional. [...]
Despite being the country’s largest adult demographic the Millennial participation rate in the November midterm elections was the worst of any age group. Only about 21 percent of adult Millennials cast a ballot and exit polls showed that voters 30 and younger represented only 13 percent of the electorate. However, in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections they were the largest bloc of voters.
Anne Gearan runs down Hillary Clinton's strategy so far:
Her appeals to liberals were on clear display last week at a gala award ceremony in New York named for Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968 during his idealistic run for the White House.
Clinton said she is proud to have been part of an administration that ended extrajudicial transfers and abusive treatment of terrorism detainees. The practices were the subject of an exhaustive Senate report this month that concluded that the CIA had engaged in torture and that the methods were ineffective in gaining useful intelligence.
The Orange County Register says it's time for "new leaders":
Consider this: Assuming that either Bush or Clinton makes the race in 2016, it will mean that nine of the past 10 presidential elections will have featured a member of the Bush or Clinton families somewhere in the mix (2012 was an exception). Of course, we laud both clans’ dedication to public service — but, surely, a nation of more than 300 million people has enough political talent to keep the highest office in the land from being the near-exclusive purview of just two families.
For good or ill, the Bushes and the Clintons have shaped much of the past three decades of American politics. Perhaps, however, it is time they yield the floor to a new generation. Indeed, it seems even their own parties may be growing restless. Progressive dissatisfaction with Clinton is not negligible, and the same can be said of conservatives’ reaction to Bush.
There is something unseemly about this quasi-aristocratic tendency taking hold in a constitutional republic. Rotating a diverse cast of characters through high office is a healthy impulse in a country such as ours. We wish Bush and Clinton well in their respective endeavors – but we also welcome an influx of fresh blood to keep them on their toes as 2016 approaches.
Ryan Cooper writes about how to address racism:
Instead of focusing on individual guilt and innocence, the socioeconomic structure that undergirds racism can get equal or greater billing. If educating the privileged has reached a point of diminishing returns, then attacking racist outcomes with structural policy can make that education unnecessary.
Now, it should be noted that any individual instance of calling out prejudice is surely harmless and heartfelt. It should further be noted that many if not most anti-prejudice activists share these structural goals. The problem is a question of emphasis. Prejudiced words tend to get 10 times more attention than racist acts and structures. For example, Donald Sterling was hounded mercilessly for his racist comments, but largely ignored for his concretely racist actions as a landlord.
And the problems America faces go far beyond one rotten rich person. There's the prison-industrial complex. The stupendous wealth and income gap between black and white. The fact that the police randomly gun down unarmed black men and boys on a regular basis. That's just for starters — and it's getting worse, not better.
Emily Wax-Thibodeaux shines light on the battle female veterans face after sexual trauma:
Thousands of female veterans are struggling to get health-care treatment and compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs on the grounds that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by sexual trauma in the military. The veterans and their advocates call it “the second battle” — with a bureaucracy they say is stuck in the past.
On a final note,
The Boston Herald pays tribute to journalists who put their lives on the line:
At this time of year we take a moment to pay tribute to those in our own profession — journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty — that duty being to bring their readers and their listeners the news often from very dangerous places.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based watchdog group, released the grim statistics this week that at least 60 journalists have been killed on the job this year, about half of those in the Middle
East and at least 40 percent of those killed were deliberately targeted.