The nation rarely waits with bated breath to see what laws California is passing, but health care reform might just be an exception. Yesterday, California’s Assembly voted along party lines to create a mandate requiring all Californians to purchase health insurance through government programs, employers, or on their own. The plan closely resembles those already in existence in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine as well as the proposals put forth by presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. However, to become law the bill still has to pass the Senate and be approved by voters next November, which seems uncertain given public anxieties about the state’s looming budget gap that has been aggravated by the housing crisis.

More interestingly, the debates that have emerged from this process likely presage what we can expect to see on a national level as the issue of health care reform gains momentum. As any exhausted Sacramento lobbyist or policymaker will tell you, the California bill took a year to hammer out, and although it had the support of Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, none of the Republicans in the Assembly voted for the bill, which they criticized as putting an undue burden on employers and lacking the guarantee of controlling costs. Some liberals have also questioned the financial impact of the plan on families, and have shunned the bill as a victory for the insurance industry. Our presidential candidates would do well to learn from how the issue plays out over the coming year. Hopefully the spirit of bipartisanism that paved the way for the bill’s victory will not be undermined by bipartisanism in reverse—a joint effort to tank what may be the state’s best shot of providing health care to the large number of uninsured Californians.

This week, New America Media released the results of a poll showing the attitudes of different ethnic groups toward opportunity and the American Dream. According to the poll, 74% of Latinos, 64% of Asians, and 44% of African Americans believe in the American Dream (defined as "if you work hard, you will succeed in the U.S.). When asked whether every American has the equal opportunity to succeed, 59% of Latinos, 43% of Asians, and 30% of African Americans strongly agreed.

While the methodology of the poll was somewhat flawed (for example, it took into account the difference in attitudes expressed by Asians depending on their country of origin but not Latinos, who are an incredibly diverse population), overall the results affirmed that the American Dream is alive and well in the hearts of many new Americans. On the one hand, the results are not surprising, since immigrants tend to self-select for the most optimistic and hard-working among a population. On the other hand, the findings are significant at a time when open hostility toward immigrants is being voiced by the media and many of our presidential candidates.

That African Americans are far more skeptical about America being a place where they have equal opportunity and a chance to achieve the American Dream is also significant, and shows the fault lines that exist between the experiences of different ethnic groups in our nation. It would be interesting to know why people think the American Dream is or isn't reachable, and what accounts for the differences between ethnic groups.

The poll results are also an interesting contrast to one conducted a year ago by the Aspen Institute, in which racial and ethnic backgrounds were not taken into account. That poll found the following:

"--While 81 percent agree that America is the land of opportunity, the idea is not something that is being realized, it is simply an abstract concept.
-- Today, 61 percent of Americans say they are not living the American Dream.
-- 61 percent of Americans who aren't living the Dream say they do not believe that they will ever reach the American Dream in their lifetime.
-- 75 percent say the American Dream is somewhat broken, with just 1 in 4 saying it is "alive and well" today.
-- 9 in 10 agree that it is harder to achieve the American Dream than ever before.
-- In addition, just 49 percent agree that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can lead a solid middle class life. 51 percent of Americans disagree with that statement."

Further polls along the lines of what the Aspen Institute and the New America Media conducted should offer a rich and varied picture of how different groups of Americans view the American Dream. In addition, when it is complete, Hope Street Group's Economic Opportunity Index will offer a quantitative perspective on which groups of Americans have the most access to opportunity today, and what is most important to achieving it. Quantitative and qualitative studies combined should offer a complete and varied picture of the state of the American Dream, indicators of where our policies are falling short, and point to what we can do as a nation to rebuild the American Dream for everybody.

The demand for flexible work arrangements and extended leave after the birth of a child is no longer the sole purview of working moms. In a trend that the media has annoyingly dubbed the "Daddy Wars" (is anybody else tired of the combative and polarizing language used to describe these kinds of debates?), an increasing number of fathers are fighting to spend more time with their families without forfeiting their careers. And many want to, or already do, share equal childcare responsibilities with their partners. According to USA Today, almost 70 percent of working fathers would consider staying home with the kids if money wasn't a consideration.

As women continue to outnumber men in higher education and enter the workforce in rising numbers, many men have seen an increase in their responsibilities for childcare. This new generation of fathers faces the same struggles as legions of mothers before them, including the stress of juggling work and family, but without the benefits that many moms have. As a result, men are starting to demand similar benefits that will allow them to care for their children. And really, why shouldn't they get them? Flexible work policies and arrangements that allow for dads to be more involved in childrearing should appeal to conservatives and liberals alike. A bevy of studies has shown that strong paternal involvement helps kids get higher grades and test scores, improves their self esteem, and even increases their assets.

As for the "Daddy Wars" and "Mommy Wars," we need a détente--no more moralizing or sparring over who is superior for spending more time with kids than at work, or vice versa. The trade-offs parents face when it comes to career and family are fraught with financial and emotional repercussions for everybody. If you are a dad, we'd love to hear your thoughts about what some sensible policies would look like.

After years of dismissing the hordes of street protestors denouncing free trade and the pernicious effects of globalization, it appears that our nation's leaders have suddenly, and definitively, turned against free trade. Everywhere you look these days, the zeitgeist is anti-globalization. For a while, I thought it was just because I spend a lot of time in San Francisco and Berkeley, where the "localvore" movement reigns supreme. But the directive to grow, buy and eat local is even permeating the heart of Silicon Valley, which thrives on and could not even exist without globalization. A cynic would say that the growing anti-globalization vibe is merely a marketing ploy, and indeed in some situations that seems to be the case (to wit: tiny downtown Menlo Park has put up a banner in recent days urging people to "Shop Menlo Park: Buy Local-Support Local Economy," even if the vast majority of goods sold there are not, in fact, produced in our fair town).

It used to be that the only people you could find being very vocal against free trade were those who lived in places where their (mostly manufacturing) jobs had been outsourced, or environmental and labor groups concerned about a global race to the bottom in standards and wages. But as growing numbers of Republicans and Democrats alike turn against free trade and question the effects of globalization on economic opportunity and prosperity (for a window into one Republican's change of heart, check out this article on realclearpolitcs.com), it's worth trying to get to the heart of the matter.

Like immigration, the current debate over free trade is dominated by emotion- many middle-class Americans blame globalization in general and free trade in particular for the tremendous anxiety they feel about their economic security. The traditional economic wisdom-that a rising ride lifts all boats-clearly doesn't cut it anymore. And why should it when an increasing number of job categories from lawyers to tech workers are being outsourced? Americans are right to question whether the expansion of free trade agreements is beneficial to them. After all, markets cannot be ethical or moral. But the current move toward market isolationism is a misguided throwback to a time that does not exist anymore, and sets up an unnecessary tension between local needs and broader prosperity that can be shared through globalization.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and questions about labor and environmental standards, farm subsidies, and economic competitiveness will trip up even the most astute policymaker. But globalization need not be the death knell of American prosperity. The challenge we face as a nation is how to harness the power of free trade to benefit us all.