17 December 2012
I lived in the US from 1997 until 2000. Back then, I was a pretty hard-core social conservative, and was pretty unyielding in my support of Republicans. I was anti-abortion, pro-prayer-in-schools, the whole deal. I supported Bush in 2001. I grew and my views changed as I started to feel differently about social issues. But that’s a whole different story.
But even in my most hard-core Republican days, I was a supporter of gun control. I remember arguing with one of my Bible study leaders at church about it when I was about 14. One of my clearest memories of my time there was the fact I was home sick the day of the Columbine shooting, that Mum went out to do the grocery shopping, and that I called her on her new cell phone — the first time I’d ever called a cell phone — in tears after they showed video footage from a helicopter of a blood-covered student waving out the window. I was about the same age as many of the victims. It hit home.
Coming from a country who had enacted widespread and effective gun control immediately following the Port Arthur massacre less than a year before we left, I thought it was stupid that the US couldn’t do the same. I remember ripping a particularly great op ed from Anna Quindlen on the issue and posting it on my wall. I was at a loss to understand why people were willing to accept horrific homicides rates in exchange for a right that hadn’t been moderated as technology came.
We came back to Australia in 2000, but my love of the United States has never really gone away. I enrolled in my MA in US Studies in 2009, and it was only then that I started to really grapple with what the 2nd Amendment means in context, about how guns and gun culture are part of the US. One of the great benefits of the USSC degree is the capacity to closely examine and try to understand the United States from the perspective of an outsider. Not to say “you should be more like us” but rather “why aren’t you?”
I continue to think gun control is a great idea. I continue to think assault weapons should be banned, and the government should try a buy-back. I think concealed carry laws are stupid. But I think it’s far more complicated than just saying “ban guns”, and understanding how gun culture fits into broader American culture — political and otherwise — is really important.
This post was originally published at NaysayersSpeak
1 November 2012
As the water recedes, and the East Coast is faced with the significant clean up after Hurricane Sandy, it’s probably worth a minute to consider whether it’s possible for the US to mimic the actions Australia took after the Queensland floods.
After a period of significant flooding in Queensland in 2010–11 — covering an area of around a million square kilometres and claiming 44 lives — the Queensland state and Australian federal governments faced a pretty large reconstruction bill, both to replace infrastructure and to assist those who couldn’t receive flood insurance.
This isn’t unlike the situation in the US right now. Hurricane Sandy’s bill is difficult to calculate at the moment, but no doubt it will number in the many billions of dollars. And as the Wall Street Journal explained, private insurance companies won’t be on the hook for much of it:
Sandy is expected to become one of the costliest storms ever. But a substantial share of the tab won't be picked up by insurers, because standard homeowners' policies don't cover flood damage.
Instead, an indebted federal flood-insurance program is expected to pay for billions in property damage, while local, state, and federal taxpayers will likely take the lead in financing repairs to subways, roads, and other infrastructure.
As such, the US federal and state governments are likely to face a hefty bill, not unlike their Australian equivalents did after the Queensland floods. So how did the Australians address it?
A couple of months after the floods, the Australian Government passed legislation that would temporarily raise taxes to pay for the reconstruction. All Australians earning over $50,000 per year would pay an extra one per cent tax in the 2011–12 financial year. The levy only applied to people who were not affected by the disaster, and raised about a third of the total needed for reconstruction. The rest of the money required was raised through spending cuts and delaying scheduled infrastructure projects.
All-in-all, it was a pretty balanced policy that was a sensible response to an unprecedented event.
Yet it’s hard to see the US adopting such a policy. Raising taxes has become such an anathema to the Republican Party in particular that even in the face of overwhelming destruction, the idea of even a temporary raise taxes will be off the table. In reality, paying a small extra amount in tax to help the East Coast rebuild would be a deeply patriotic act. But the notion that taxes should not be raised, except perhaps on the wealthiest Americans (and even then it’s still pretty unpopular), is so deeply embedded in the current American political discourse that not even a major disaster such as Hurricane Sandy could shake it.
Which is a shame, because kicking in a little bit extra for those whose lives have been affected by this would be a pretty decent thing for citizens to do, and the perfect project for a lame duck session.
12 August 2012
This is a bit of an overshare. It’s the kind of thing that would usually be private. Unfortunately, by co-sponsoring HR 212, Paul Ryan has made my private health issue a matter of public policy.
I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. It’s pretty sucky. Basically, it means that I have a hormonal imbalance that does all sorts of really unfortunate things to my body — acne, extra hair, weight gain. On top of that, I get my period really rarely. Like, maybe three times a year. That may sound alright (the fewer periods the better, am I right ladies?), but when I do get them, I have incredible amounts of pain. Plus, and this is more important to me, my chances of getting pregnant naturally are pretty tiny.
One of the problems with getting a period so rarely (which is actually a condition called oligomenorrhea) is that it puts you at a higher risk of getting uterine cancer. So on top of all the rest of the horribleness that is PCOS, you are at a higher risk of cancer.
PCOS is pretty common. It’s estimated that between 5 and 10 per cent of women of reproductive age have it. It’s the most common endocrine disorder for women in that age bracket. It’s also incurable.
But it is treatable.
One of the most common and effective treatments of the side-effects of PCOS is the Pill. It treats a bunch of the symptoms. My skin clears up. I lose weight. But, more importantly, I get my period regularly, which means it hurts less and, best of all, reduces my chance of getting endometrial cancer.
But Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan doesn’t care about any of that. He doesn’t care about preventing pain or reducing the risk of cancer. He wants to ban the oral conceptive pill because he thinks a fertilised egg should have all the protections of a human being.
You can see how ridiculous this is in my case. He would ban me from being able to access medical care I need because of a potential fertilised egg. The fertilised egg doesn’t even exist. The fertilised egg has a very slim chance of ever existing naturally, due to my PCOS. But he’s so concerned about that potential, he’d prevent me from having access to the care I need.
And you know what? If I did want to have a kid, he’d like to sincerely limit my options there too, because he’d ban IVF.
Paul Ryan is an extremist. For all the talk about small government, he’d like to interfere with my doctor’s capacity to treat my chronic condition. That’s about as big as government gets.
This post was originally published at NaysayersSpeak.
12 April 2012
I’m still on the Obama email list from 2008, and I got this email this morning. It encouraged everyone to copy it, so I think I can post it here with impunity:
1. Romney’s positions are the most radically anti-women of any candidate in a generation: He supports banning all abortions, backed a so-called “personhood” amendment that could make certain forms of birth control illegal, and says he would “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood that provides preventive services like cancer screenings for millions of women.
2. Romney would repeal Obamacare. Insurance companies would once again be allowed to run up premiums, unjustifiably deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, drop patients when they get sick, discriminate against women by charging them more for coverage than men, and spend more of your premium dollars on CEO profits and bonuses instead of your actual health care.
3. Romney is a risk when it comes to foreign policy and national security. On many of these questions, he has shifted his position for political reasons, even within the same campaign. His only clear commitment is to endless wars: He has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave our troops there indefinitely. He called the President’s decision to bring our troops home from Iraq by last Christmas “tragic.”
4. Despite the lessons of recent history, Romney would double down on the disastrous tax policies that handed windfalls to the wealthy, but stacked the deck against the middle class. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. To the surprise of no one, Romney also opposes the Buffett Rule. He would allow millionaires to continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals that often allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.
5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it — replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn’t cover out of their own limited budgets.
Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters. It’s on us to speak the truth.
So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook. Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.
When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is “moderate,” you need to know what to say.
You are the President’s voice out there, and I can’t stress enough how you will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not. The more Americans learn about Mitt Romney, the less they like him, and the less they trust him.
I think this is a pretty telling indication of where the Obama campaign sees the 2012 fight. The fact the gender gap appears so prominently reinforces the idea that a lot of this campaign will be about women’s issues — and thank goodness for that, because usually they’re not even mentioned. I’m still not entirely convinced that the whole contraception debate wasn’t an incredibly clever ploy on the Obama administration’s behalf to bait Republicans. It’s cynical, sure, but also damn smart.
I’m also wondering if maybe the Obama campaign thinks Paul Ryan is going to be the VP — or that he’s a likely choice and they’re getting in a preemptive strike. Points 2, 4 and 5 link pretty closely to the Ryan budget.
Also, I think it’s great that Obama is running on Obamacare. It’s good that it’s stopped being the electoral poison it was in 2010. It’s about time they said “dammit, this is a good thing, and we’re going to stop defending it and start celebrating it.”
7 March 2012
It's really over now. Mitt Romney is the nominee.
I mean, it was really over after Florida, but now the media will have to stop pretending it's a contest and Republicans will have to start acting like he's the presumptive nominee. Though Gingrich and Santorum may — and Paul will certainly — struggle on for a while, Romney can now pivot to the general.
Romney got Virginia and Vermont by reasonable margins — he got over 50 per cent in Virginia, which is impressive and will net him a lot of delegates, and beat Paul by a 14 per cent margin in Vermont, as well as completely destroying the competition in his home state — 70+ per cent there.
Gingrich got his home state of Georgia, but fell short of the 50 per cent he needed to lock in the delegates, so that won't hurt Romney in the long run. Santorum is continuing to do well in deep red states — they've called Tennessee for him, and he's looking good in Oklahoma too.
The only interesting contest left is in Ohio, where Santorum and Romney are neck-and-neck. Because Ohio borders Pennsylvania, there's something of a home state advantage for Santorum, but because of the importance of Ohio in the general, there could be some questions about Romney's electability if he doesn't manage to win there. But those questions won't actually mean anything, because with the number of delegates he'll net today, Romney's lead is unassailable.
No real results from Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota yet. I suspect Romney will do very, very well in Idaho, but it'll be interesting to see the influence of the libertarian vote in Alaska and Idaho.
5 January 2012
There’s a bit of confusion coming out of the contest in Iowa. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were separated by only eight of the 122 255 votes cast. The implications of this, however, might not be what you think:
What it doesn’t mean:
- Rick Santorum is a 50/50 chance to get the nomination.
He’s not. He did well in Iowa, after a late surge in a socially conservative state that voted for Mike Huckabee in 2008. He’s certainly in a better position than he was two weeks ago, but I still wouldn’t peg his odds at more than 5 per cent.
- Romney is in trouble.
Romney massively outperformed expectations in Iowa. He spent very little time in the state, and it has never formed a big part of his strategy. His team also managed expectations incredibly well, so that an 8-vote win is actually a major victory. Romney’s campaign is right on track.
- Obama will wipe the floor with either of these guys.
It’s tempting to think that Obama will be in for an easy time in the fall because of the strangeness of the Republican nominating process, but that’s simply not the case. Once the GOP has its nominee, they’ll unite around the candidate and start attacking Obama. People vote on the economy, and the economy isn’t great. Whether it’s Romney or someone else (the latter unlikely), Obama will be in for a tough run in 2012.
What it means:
- The run is definitely over for Bachmann, probably over for Perry, and possibly over for Gingrich.
Iowa might not tell us who did win, but it’s good at telling us who definitely won’t. Candidates who built a campaign for an Iowa-friendly demographic and haven’t done well will likely get out of the race. Plus, New Hampshire is expensive and, without a strong showing in Iowa, these campaigns are likely to struggle to raise cash.
- Ron Paul can’t win, but won’t quit.
He’ll stay in it a while, but he can’t win the nomination without winning Iowa. Really, given his antagonistic relationship with the Republican powerbrokers, he was never going to win it anyway, but any chance he had went when he fell 3 796 votes short of the winner.
- Santorum will get lots of media attention.
The “Santorum surge” is the story of the week, not Romney’s winning it. The media need a story to tell, and “Romney’s nomination is all but certain” isn’t going to sell much advertising, so the conflict will be played up over the week. At the same time, Santorum will get the same media vetting that Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry all endured.
- Romney will get lots of money.
Strategic donors are smart. They see the was the nomination contest is going, and start to donate to Romney. And as Romney gets more money, his ultimate success narrative will built, and the whole thing will become a self-reinforcing snowball which will barrel its way to Super Tuesday, when Romney will lock up the nomination.
- People should have listened to me earlier this week when I recommended bets on Romney at $1.30 to get the nomination.
He’s now paying $1.07.
4 January 2012
As we turn to the Iowa caucuses, there are a few mistakes that it’s easy for Australians to make — and frequently do — when discussing US elections. So here’s my list of seven mistakes Aussies often make when they talk about American politics.
1) They assume American political parties are homogenous
American Political parties truly are big tent — in each party, there are a wide spectrum of beliefs and voting patterns in Congress. Using a conservative-progressive scale, which is oversimplified but has its uses, the most progressive Republicans are more so than the most conservative Democrats. Within parties, there are groups that hold different things to be valuable. Assuming “Republicans are X” or “Democrats are Y” really underestimates the huge amount of variety in US politics.
And this variety is important because most legislation is bipartisan. Caucuses arranged around issues are incredibly useful. They allow Congresspeople who represent districts with similar issues to join together. Representative Sam Farr, for whom I interned in 2010, is the co-chair of the House Ocean Caucus, a bipartisan committee primarily made up of representatives from coastal districts for whom Ocean management issues are important.
Related: Assuming American political parties have party discipline.
2) They don’t realise political philosophy is actually pretty important
Political philosophy plays a far more obvious role in American politics than it does in Australia, yet as Australian observers, it’s easy to focus on policy itself, rather than the philosophical debates that underlie it. Often, the issue for many Republicans isn’t whether something like health care is a good thing, but whether it should be the responsibility of the federal (rather than state) government. The boundaries of government, what government exists to do and what it does not, and which government ought to be responsible for things is a far more central and important part of the American political conversation.
By representing the debate as being about whether something is good, rather than whether or not the US federal government should be the ones doing it, much of the important nuance in the debate is lost.
3) They assume that foreign policy is important to voters
While as non-Americans, its easy to get caught up in foreign policy issues, the truth is that elections aren’t usually won or lost on the power of foreign policy. The economy matters more. Cultural issues matter more. A small subset of Americans vote on foreign policy, but most don’t. in 2012, it will be the economy that matters most.
4) They overestimate the power of the Presidency
Oh, this is a big one. It’s amazing how often Australians talk about the President as though they operate as the Prime Minister. The role is very different. Separation of powers — which we talk about in the Australian system but don’t really experience in the same way — is key. Congress makes the law; the President does not. Saying “the President will do this” or “Obama should have done that” displays a very naive understanding of what the Presidency actually can and can’t do.
I don’t want to get all primary-source on you, but it’s worth looking at the Constitution at this point. Here are the powers of the Presidency:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Compare that to the powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress is far more powerful, and the President far less, than many understand.
5) They think Evangelical Christians are very influential
Yes, they’re there. Yes, they vote. Yes, they vote in large numbers. But if you want to look at voting blocks that really influence elections, the age and wealth of voters is far more significant. Conservative Christians do not rule the United States with an iron fist, and there are plenty of people in both parties who identify as Christian yet don’t support traditional “culture war” issues.
6) They assume it’s a story of good guys vs. bad guys
This is more of a summary of many of the points above, but given the Democrats’ pretty significant popularity in Australia, often there’s a tendency to treat Republicans as the bad guys. In reality, their policy positions are far more varied and nuanced than once might assume, and the vocal, tea party type is just one of many kinds of Republicans. Portraying all Republicans as hard-right, super conservative Evangelicals is lazy, and it doesn’t at all serve to help us understand the US more comprehensively. It does, however, feed into anti-American stereotypes which abound.
7) They think the US would be better off with a Parliamentary system
People often talk about the problems in the US Political system as though they are fundamental- it’s either the existence of a powerful extreme conservatism or the lack of a parliamentary system that causes most of the problems. They’re not. The separation of powers, the incredible diversity of US political parties and the centrality and importance of individual rights is part of what has made the US the great modern democracy. Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it needs some tweaking. But these are not fundamental problems.
Rather, there are some pretty significant structural issues that have caused a lot of the US’s current political problems. You could significantly reform the US system not through huge, fundamental system change, but a couple of minor adjustments:
- National popular vote for the President. Get rid of the electoral college
- Change the Senate representation rule to reduce the massive disparity. Introduce a tiered system where the largest states get 6 Senators, the mid-sized states get 4 and the small states get 2. That way, you preserve the state-based nature of the Senate, but understand the interests of a citizen of Montana should not be weighted at 66x those of a citizen of California.
- Get rid of the filibuster. Allow the Senate to pass legislation by a simple majority. The supermajority plus the current Senate representation method means that Senators representing just over 14% of the population can prevent something from passing. That’s hardly what the framers of the Constitution could have had in mind. Yes, that tyranny of the majority is a real and important thing to consider, but that’s what the Bill of Rights is for.
- Eliminate anonymous holds on nominations. They’re just undemocratic.
This post was originally published at ErinRiley.com.au.
24 June 2010
Kevin Rudd lost the leadership of the Australian Labor Party today- and with it, the role of Prime Minister of Australia. Did the Oil Spill just claim its first major international leadership victim?
President Barack Obama was supposed to be in Australia just last weekend, visiting the Prime Minister and speaking to a joint session of Parliament. The Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico postponed the trip for the second time. In March, the President postponed his planned trip because of health care reform. It was rescheduled for last weekend. Given Rudd's dwindling popularity in June, a trip would most likely have been the salve he needed.
President Obama is still incredibly popular in Australia. There can be little doubt that a visit from him would have boosted Kevin Rudd's poll numbers, however minorly, and stemmed the tide of the leadership challenge. While a leadership challenge mere days after showing off Australia's wonders to the leader of the free world would have been unthinkable, one days after a snub was both realistic and almost to be expected. And so Julia Gillard challenged Kevin Rudd for the Federal Labor leadership. And won. If Obama had visited last weekend, such a challenge was unfathomable.
However indirectly, the Oil Spill claimed its first world leader today. Kevin Rudd could no longer be Prime Minister of Australia. If BP's oil spill hadn't have happened, I sincerely doubt that Kevin Rudd could have lost the leadership. Barack Obama canceling his trip had far greater consequences than anyone could imagine.
17 June 2010
For a long time, Australia and the United States were the last two hold-outs in the developed world on mandatory paid parental leave. Of course, the Australian senate passed a bill today offering 18 weeks of paid leave at the federal minimum wage. So now the United States stands alone as the only country not to mandate paid parental leave.
It will be interesting to see how family leave activists in the US respond to this, and whether it changes the debate at all. By removing the only other country to hold-out, the narrative could easily shift to one of American exceptionalism. The debate over health care reform doesn't bode well for any other extension of "the welfare state", even if it's merely a requirement on businesses.
But with women making up more than 50% of the American workforce for the first time in history, as pointed out by Hanna Rosin in her dreadful-for-entirely-different-reasons Atlantic Monthly cover story, The End of Men, perhaps this can't last. Unsteady income streams threaten family security, and as more women become the primary breadwinner, the case for mandatory paid parental leave could easily become more compelling and attract greater support.
1 June 2010
I was recently re-listening to David Blight's amazing Civil War lecture series, about which I've waxed lyrical before, and was reminded of the story of the first Memorial day, which I recounted in that earlier post, but is worth remembering once again:
The very night of that ceremony, which was the 14th of April, they held a banquet of a sort in a building that had a roof on it, back in Charleston, and that was the very night, of course, that Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater in Washington. But the black folks of Charleston had planned one more ceremony. That ceremony was a burial ceremony. It turns out that during the last months of the war the Confederate Army turned the planter's horse track, a racecourse--it was called the Washington Racecourse--into an open air cemetery--excuse me, prison. And in that open air prison, in the infield of the horse track--about 260-odd Union soldiers had died of disease and exposure--and they were buried in unmarked graves in a mass gravesite out behind the grandstand of the racetrack. And by the way, there was no more important and symbolic site in low country planter/slaveholding life then their racetrack.
Well, the black folks at Charleston got organized, they knew about all this. They went to the site. They re-interred all the graves, the men. They couldn't mark them with names, they didn't have any names. Then they made them proper graves and they built a fence all the way around this cemetery, about 100 yards long and fity, sixty yards deep, and they whitewashed the fence and over an archway they painted the inscription "Martyrs of the Racecourse." And then on May 1st 1865 they held a parade of 10,000 people, on the racetrack, led by 3000 black children carrying armloads of roses and singing John Brown's Body, followed then by black women, then by black men--it was regimented this way--then by contingents of Union infantry. Everybody marched all the way around the racetrack; as many as could fit got into the gravesite. Five black preachers read from scripture. A children's choir sang the national anthem, America the Beautiful, and several spirituals, and then they broke from that and went back into the infield of the racetrack and did essentially what you and I do on Memorial Day, they ran races, they listened to sixteen speeches, by one count, and the troops marched back and forth and they held picnics. This was the first Memorial Day.
It's easy to forget Memorial Day originated in the Civil War. The way that war was remembered is both fascinating, and an interesting insight into American culture and history. Blight's book, Race and Reunion, looks at the way the Civil War was remembered during the first 50 years after it was fought.
November this year marks 150 years since Lincoln's election. December marks 150 years since South Carolina seceded. In the coming five years, as the 150th anniversaries of battles and moments of the war are remembered, the battle for the way its remembered will no doubt resurface.
Happy Memorial Day, everyone!
- US-China relations: Implications for US partners in Asia
- Delivering a Sustainable Future City: Roundtable lunch
- Delivering a Sustainable Future City
- Reinventing Fire: Changing the energy rules for a growing economy
- The US, Australia and China with Kurt M Campbell
- Alliance 21 Education & Innovation: Australia-US Policy Exchange
- Low carbon jet fuel: The industry flight path
- AIRSHOW 2013 - Reception at Government House
- New South Wales Advanced Biofuels Industry Roundtable
- Evidence-Based Policymaking
- Australia/US Dialogue on Energy Security
- Dynamics of 21st Century Trade and Investment in the Asia-Pacific: An Australia-US Perspective
- Perth USAsia Centre launch
- Election Day Spectacular
- US Election: America at a crossroad
- The Impact of the US Presidential Election on Australia & the Asia-Pacific
- Green Growth/Advanced Manufacturing
- The Problem with America's Job Market
- Intelligent Strategy
- Republican National Convention speeches live!
- Debate the future of America 2012
- Dr Esther Brimmer: The future of multilateralism
- Prospects for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region
- International Innovation in Higher Education Workshop
- City Revitalisation: Lessons for Sydney and its suburbs
- UPE10 Symposium - Dinner
- 2012 Agriculture and Environment Research Symposium: Soil Security
- Why aren't we talking about soil?
- The role of the media in US Presidential Elections
- Paul Keating: Reflections on the Shift of Economic Gravity from the Atlantic to the Pacific United States Studies Centre
- UN Rio+20 Side Event - Responding to the Global Soil Crisis
- NASA: A Presentation
- Entrepreneurship and human rights: Knights Apparel’s ethical business model
- Roundtable Lunch with Kurt Campbell
- Super Tuesday Live!
- Pacific 2012 International Maritime Conference
- Karl and Ching Eikenberry
- US in the World Lecture - with guest Shanto Iyengar
- Bob Carr: Postgraduate Information Evening
- US In the World Lecture with guest Peter Hartcher
- Roundtable Event - Two Perspectives of Sustainable City Development
- Bill Chafe and Ray Nagin: Global America Lecture
- Washington Soil Security meeting
- John Howard: US in the World Lecture
- James Fallows in the US World lecture theatre
- Roundtable with U.S Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides
- Graduation Ceremony America: Rebels, Heroes & Renegades
- Jeffrey Bleich: US in the World Lecture
- 2011 United States Studies Debates
- Fault-lines in Immigration Policy: The Harvard-Sydney Immigration Summit 2011
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - The Decade Ahead
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Keynote Address by Robert McClelland
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Breakout Sessions Day 2
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - 9/11 at Home
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - The US and Asia-Pacific Century
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Roundtable on the 9/11 Decade
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - The Freedom Agenda and the Arab Spring
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Breakout Sessions Day 1
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Keynote Address by Allan Gyngell
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Rethinking American Power
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - The War(s) on Terrorism
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Australian and American Perspectives
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Welcome
- 2011 National Summit: The 9/11 Decade - Cocktail Reception
- Bob Hawke: Reflections on the Australia-United States Alliance
- Washington DC Internship Program
- American Grace: How religion divides and unites America
- John Howard: Reflections on the Australia-United States Alliance
- Soil Carbon Stakeholder Workshop
- Reception for US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
- City of the Future
- The Midterm Referendum on Obama
- Welcome reception for United States Consul General
- Jack Miles at the Centre for Independent Studies
- Waiting for the Preacher: Obama’s America in World Religious Context
- The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris
- Intelligence reform in the United States
- Book Launch: Financial Fraud and Guerrilla Violence in Missouri's Civil War, 1861-1865
- Ethical supply chains: An executive roundtable
- Jeffrey Schott: Trade policy in the Obama administration and the outlook for Asia- Pacific economic integration
- Race in America, race in Australia: A public forum featuring Glenn Loury, Waleed Aly and Bob Carr
- Workshop on Inequality
- China-US relations: Partners or rivals
- Mark Tushnet: Current issues and controversies in the US
- Gail Fosler: What the financial crisis tells us about ourselves - A US perspective on economic and governance challenges
- Jonathan Greenblatt delivers lecture to undergraduate students
- Peter Katzenstein: Why the clash of civilizations is wrong
- Henry Cisneros on housing and sustainability
- James Hansen: What Australia should do about climate change
- War correspondent Mark Danner in conversation with Geoffrey Garrett
- Launch of the Dow Sustainability Program
- Sustainable supply chains
- David Brady: The Obama Presidency and the outlook for the coming year
- US Ambassador meets students at the US Studies Centre
- US Business Leadership Forum with Rupert Murdoch
- Celebrating the launch of American Review
- One year of Obama: A discussion with James Fallows, Paul Kelly, Robert Hill and Geoffrey Garrett
- James Fallows: One year of Obama
- Obama: One year in the making
- Meeting of the US Studies Centre Council of Advisors
- Costello discusses post-GFC financial reform
- Jim Johnson: How is Obama responding to the financial crisis?
- Jim Johnson seminar with US Studies students
- US Politics in the Pub: The rebirth of the Republican right?
- Dennis Richardson discusses the state of Australia-US relations
- "US in the World" High school lecture
- 2009 National Summit: Dinner
- 2009 National Summit: John Micklethwait Keynote Speech
- 2009 National Summit: Human health and sustainability - What are the challenges for globalisation?
- 2009 National Summit: Expert Sessions 2
- 2009 National Summit: Business solves poverty - The new approach to corporate social responsibility
- 2009 National Summit: Corporate social responsibility - How should business behave in the GFC?
- 2009 National Summit: Climate change and energy security - Looking towards the Copenhagen Conference
- 2009 National Summit: Breakfast
- 2009 National Summit: Public Forum
- 2009 National Summit: Expert Sessions 1
- 2009 National Summit: Labour and human rights - Can we afford them in a global financial crisis?
- 2009 National Summit: Malcolm Turnbull Keynote Speech
- 2009 National Summit: Governing the global economy - Economic nationalism vs. Bretton Woods 2.0
- 2009 National Summit: Obama's America - Globalisation headaches and protectionist impulses
- 2009 National Summit: Peter Garrett Opening Address
- 2009 National Summit: Welcome Address
- 2009 National Summit: Welcome Reception
- 2009 National Summit: Masterclass
- Thomas Mann: The Obama Administration and its Outlook on the Asia Pacific
- Thomas Mann: The First 100 Days of the Obama Administration
- Robert Burgelman: Leading Strategically in a Turbulent Environment
- Robert Thomson: The Obama Administration and the Actions Shaping the Global Financial Crisis
- Barry Jackson: Evaluating the Obama Stimulus Package
- The Great American Recession: What Does It Mean For You?
- Edward Leamer: The Financial Crisis and the Outlook for the US
- Inauguration Watch: Manning Bar
- Inauguration Watch: Breakfast
- Harry Harding: China in the 21st Century and Policy Implications for Australia, the US and the World
- Christmas Function
- fdgdfsg sdf sdfg
- The President-Elect: What Can We Expect?
- David Brady: The US Under the New President
- Election Day Spectacular
- Michael Parks and Simon Jackman: America at the Crossroads
- 'US in the World' High School Lecture
- Foreign Policy of Obama and McCain: Which is Australia's Gain?
- Mike Chinoy: Global Crisis Points - The War on Terror, Loose Nukes and American Foreign Policy
- James Gibbons: Replicating Silicon Valley - Lessons for Australia
- Vice Presidential Debate Screening
- Visit by the Australian Political Exchange Council’s 25th US Delegation
- Derek Shearer: Obama v McCain - Who Will Win, Does it Matter?
- John Howard Dinner
- McCain's Acceptance Speech: Republican National Convention
- New Horizons: Breaking into the US market
- Sydney Uni Live!
- Obama's Acceptance Speech: Democratic National Convention
- Hedley Bull Book Launch: Address by Bob Hawke
- Great White Fleet Centenary Ball
- Dick McCormack: Global Financial Risk and the Role of Central Banks and Regulators
- Jonathan Pollack: US-North Asia Relations
- Jeffrey Sachs Dinner
- ANZASA Conference
- Peter Scher: Will US Trade Policy Change After the 2008 Elections?
- Peter Scher: The Next President's Challenge - Global Trade and the 2008 Elections
- Matt Bai: US Political Journalism - The Next Generation
- Bob Pisano: Positioning Australian Screen Content in the US Marketplace
- Marvin Goodfriend: The Outlook for the US Economy and the State of the Financial Institutions
- American Foreign Policy After Bush: Frank Fukuyama in Conversation with Geoffrey Garrett
- Frank Fukuyama Meets US Studies Students
- Frank Fukuyama: Contemporary Issues Facing America
- Super Tuesday screening at the Manning Bar
- 2007 National Summit: Public Forum
- 2007 National Summit: Networking and Research Forum
- 2007 National Summit: America Then, America Now
- 2007 National Summit: Climate Change or Islamofascism
- 2007 National Summit: Dinner
- 2007 National Summit: How Countries Compete
- 2007 National Summit: Will the Next US Foreign Policy Look Surprisingly Like the Current One?
- 2007 National Opinion Survey: Australian Attitudes Towards the US (Part 2)
- 2007 National Summit: Opening
- 2007 National Summit: Welcome Reception
- Role of Arts and Humanities in Building International Understanding: Harriet Mayor Fulbright
- 2007 National Opinion Survey: Australian Attitudes Towards the US (Part 1)
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- March 2008
- December 2007
- October 2007