Independence Day
I love this country.
Two days ago I met a co-worker who left the Former Soviet Union 12 years ago and came to America. She misses home and made the comment that somehow her mind likes to only remember the good things about Ukraine. But, is she happy here? An emphatic yes.
My wife is an immigrant. A few years ago we attended her swearing in ceremony. The hall was filled to capacity with new Americans with their family and friends in attendance. When the National Anthem was sung my wife noticed a new citizen near her crying--he was not the only one.
A few years ago I was putting my garbage and recycling out. A Vietnamese man came along on a bike and asked if he could rummage through my recycling. I said sure. We talked and he introduced himself as a former officer in the South Vietnamese Army. What did he think of America? He loved it.
I was in a taxi once with a taxi driver from the Sudan. In his motherland he was the CFO of a company. In America he is a taxi driver--he loves America.
Each of these stories are about people who have voted with their actions to declare that America is a great place. I know from witnessing my wife's experience that it is not easy to leave familiar surroundings and come to a new country. But, I also know that there is a lot about this country to like.
When I think of what America is, I see a country where ideals and dreams are able to become reality. We are wealthy and we are free. I am grateful to be here and I hope that I can do my part to share the blessings of this country with the rest of the world. Pursue your dream and you too will improve this country and improve the world.
Happy Birthday America!
Jul 3, 2003
Republican Party Coalition in Trouble?
That is the opinion of Todd Lindberg. This caused a small spattering of comments on National Review's The Corner last night.
Ignore for now his mistaken grouping of Affirmative Action with abortion as being important to the same group. At a general level Lindberg is wrong and right.
He is wrong that serious Republican candidates will no longer fight on the issues of Affirmative Action, abortion, or Gay marriage. These so called social issues carry important significance to quite a few significant Republican leaders.
Where he is right is that Social Conservatives, a significant force in the Republican party, may have reason to feel frustrated. Afterall, seven of nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans Presidents, yet Conservatives can only reliably depend on three Conservative votes. Of the remaining four Republicans only two are sometime swing votes in favor of Republican issues. This is frustrating. There appears little chance of changing the status quo.
What Social Conservatives, and really any activist on any issue, need to come to grips with is that Republican, and Democrat, politicians are politicians first, Republicans second (if that even means anything), and Conservative third. What many people easily forget is that a politician generally has one motivation: winning elections. They may generally have some ambition about making the world a better place and thereby securing a prominent place in history for themselves, but at the end of the day this all equates to a desire to be electable. It can get confusing since electable leads to history book placement which feeds back to electable. However, it still is based on the conept of being electable in one way or another. Let's talk through some interesting examples.
Zell Miller. He has no intention of running for reelection so his party doesn't matter--he is not as concerned about electability since he is done. Of course there is the factor of historical ambition. The voters in his state like Republican policies. They have voted for Republican Presidential candidates. He must assume that bucking the Liberal Democrats will ensure him a place in the hearts of Georgians who will remember him for years to come.
Jim Jeffords. He goes down in history for swinging the Republican's out of control of the Senate. The press made a big deal about his independence. My big issues at the time were: 1)He always voted with Democrats anyway so why was this so special? 2)If he was so committed to ideal he should have made this change before he was a big powerful committee chair and only one vote divided the Senate. Bottom-line? He did it for electability reasons. His state is trending liberal and there was no way to be sure that Howard Dean wouldn't run for the US Senate. He chose an opportune time when he could exact political promises from the Democratic party. In reality his personal power in the Senate realized no real improvement, but his electability did.
The politician needs the party to help his election. In some cases the party is not helpful so the politician bucks the trend. The party has only one purpose--control of power. If there is no power then the party has no favors to reward with. Power allows the party to hand out jobs in government and deliver blocks of votes. This in turn makes the party able to extract donations and organize campaign volunteers. These two things snowball and reenforce each other. New politicians have a choice and must decide where to align themselves. If they are serious about being elected they will find some way to rationalize a position in the most powerful party in their local area or region.
So, why should Republicans be Conservative? The Republican party only needs to be Conservative enough to keep Conservatives from forming a third party. The Social Conservatives, in this case, would never win election on their own and thereby lose the power that can be derived from what is essentially a coalition within the Republican Party. The exchange is a trade of power for support. Republican party needs people to walk the streets and pass out fliers, they call the right to life people. The right to life people need conservative judges they ask the Republicans. This same type of compromising goes on in the Democratic party.
This means that the extreme views on issues can rarely attain complete success. If Republicans on the one hand need Conservatives, but on the other end of the voter spectrum they need women voters then a compromise on abortion arises. The same thing with Affirmative Action and minorities. And what of Gay marriage? If enough of the Ross Perot type of voter thinks that Gay marriage is okay you can bet the Republicans will find a way to compromise on this issue as well.
What Todd Lindberg fails to see is that this is the natural order of American politics. President Bush is a politician. Bush wants to be an electable and effective President first, Republican leader second, and Conservative ideologist third. He has concluded that being contentious on too many issues is not wise. So, he secures the issue of taxes and conducts a strong foriegn policy. On most everything else he finds a way to cut the difference and put the issue to rest. That is why he had nothing too negative or too loud to say about any of the court decisions that didn't go his way last week. Instead it is easier to move on.
The Republican Party will survive and it will continue to be the best home for Social Conservatives. But Social Conservatives must assess the landscape and determine a strategy for the next round of fights. We need to redefine the issues and do a better job of broadcasting our message so that pure politicians will have more reason to allign more closely with our views.
That is the opinion of Todd Lindberg. This caused a small spattering of comments on National Review's The Corner last night.
Ignore for now his mistaken grouping of Affirmative Action with abortion as being important to the same group. At a general level Lindberg is wrong and right.
He is wrong that serious Republican candidates will no longer fight on the issues of Affirmative Action, abortion, or Gay marriage. These so called social issues carry important significance to quite a few significant Republican leaders.
Where he is right is that Social Conservatives, a significant force in the Republican party, may have reason to feel frustrated. Afterall, seven of nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans Presidents, yet Conservatives can only reliably depend on three Conservative votes. Of the remaining four Republicans only two are sometime swing votes in favor of Republican issues. This is frustrating. There appears little chance of changing the status quo.
What Social Conservatives, and really any activist on any issue, need to come to grips with is that Republican, and Democrat, politicians are politicians first, Republicans second (if that even means anything), and Conservative third. What many people easily forget is that a politician generally has one motivation: winning elections. They may generally have some ambition about making the world a better place and thereby securing a prominent place in history for themselves, but at the end of the day this all equates to a desire to be electable. It can get confusing since electable leads to history book placement which feeds back to electable. However, it still is based on the conept of being electable in one way or another. Let's talk through some interesting examples.
Zell Miller. He has no intention of running for reelection so his party doesn't matter--he is not as concerned about electability since he is done. Of course there is the factor of historical ambition. The voters in his state like Republican policies. They have voted for Republican Presidential candidates. He must assume that bucking the Liberal Democrats will ensure him a place in the hearts of Georgians who will remember him for years to come.
Jim Jeffords. He goes down in history for swinging the Republican's out of control of the Senate. The press made a big deal about his independence. My big issues at the time were: 1)He always voted with Democrats anyway so why was this so special? 2)If he was so committed to ideal he should have made this change before he was a big powerful committee chair and only one vote divided the Senate. Bottom-line? He did it for electability reasons. His state is trending liberal and there was no way to be sure that Howard Dean wouldn't run for the US Senate. He chose an opportune time when he could exact political promises from the Democratic party. In reality his personal power in the Senate realized no real improvement, but his electability did.
The politician needs the party to help his election. In some cases the party is not helpful so the politician bucks the trend. The party has only one purpose--control of power. If there is no power then the party has no favors to reward with. Power allows the party to hand out jobs in government and deliver blocks of votes. This in turn makes the party able to extract donations and organize campaign volunteers. These two things snowball and reenforce each other. New politicians have a choice and must decide where to align themselves. If they are serious about being elected they will find some way to rationalize a position in the most powerful party in their local area or region.
So, why should Republicans be Conservative? The Republican party only needs to be Conservative enough to keep Conservatives from forming a third party. The Social Conservatives, in this case, would never win election on their own and thereby lose the power that can be derived from what is essentially a coalition within the Republican Party. The exchange is a trade of power for support. Republican party needs people to walk the streets and pass out fliers, they call the right to life people. The right to life people need conservative judges they ask the Republicans. This same type of compromising goes on in the Democratic party.
This means that the extreme views on issues can rarely attain complete success. If Republicans on the one hand need Conservatives, but on the other end of the voter spectrum they need women voters then a compromise on abortion arises. The same thing with Affirmative Action and minorities. And what of Gay marriage? If enough of the Ross Perot type of voter thinks that Gay marriage is okay you can bet the Republicans will find a way to compromise on this issue as well.
What Todd Lindberg fails to see is that this is the natural order of American politics. President Bush is a politician. Bush wants to be an electable and effective President first, Republican leader second, and Conservative ideologist third. He has concluded that being contentious on too many issues is not wise. So, he secures the issue of taxes and conducts a strong foriegn policy. On most everything else he finds a way to cut the difference and put the issue to rest. That is why he had nothing too negative or too loud to say about any of the court decisions that didn't go his way last week. Instead it is easier to move on.
The Republican Party will survive and it will continue to be the best home for Social Conservatives. But Social Conservatives must assess the landscape and determine a strategy for the next round of fights. We need to redefine the issues and do a better job of broadcasting our message so that pure politicians will have more reason to allign more closely with our views.
Unemployment - What It Means and Does NOT Mean
Today it is being reported that unemployment is up to 6.4%, the highest in 9 years. But maybe we should put on our thinking caps and evaluate this.
9 years ago places us at 1994--not a recession, in fact those were economic good times if you ask Democrats and Bill Clinton. It is instructive to compare this with historical numbers. The numbers show interesting things. From 1981 to 1986 when the Reagan economy was doing well the lowest rate was 7.0% in 1986. It was not until 1987 that the rate finally beat current rates.
Next, honest economists will admit that 0% unemployment is not attainable or even desirable. In fact, a healthy rate of unemployment is at something like 5-6%. Granted 6.4% is above that. But you need to realize that unemployment rates tend to lag behind economic growth. How come?
Easy. Unemployment rates are a measure of how many people are actively searching for a job. If I am unemployed, but not looking for a job I do not count. So, when the economy begins to improve invariably unemployment should have a momentary jump as people respond to positive reports by looking for jobs again.
The next thing, these are monthly numbers that will have to be averaged against the other months in the year to produce the actual annual rate at the end of the year. Sure, the trend is scary, but it should only concern us if it continues for more than a few months.
Finally, I think the New York Times and the AP are due for criticism. The following paragraph from the AP story ran in the New York Times is misleading:
While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.
Using the word recession implies to the reader that the economy is in recession. By economic definition a recession only applies to GDP growth that is negative for more than 2 quarters. Applying the term recession to unemployment figures creates a false impression that we are in a state of recession when in fact we are not. It would be more appropriate to say that the job market is still weak.
Today it is being reported that unemployment is up to 6.4%, the highest in 9 years. But maybe we should put on our thinking caps and evaluate this.
9 years ago places us at 1994--not a recession, in fact those were economic good times if you ask Democrats and Bill Clinton. It is instructive to compare this with historical numbers. The numbers show interesting things. From 1981 to 1986 when the Reagan economy was doing well the lowest rate was 7.0% in 1986. It was not until 1987 that the rate finally beat current rates.
Next, honest economists will admit that 0% unemployment is not attainable or even desirable. In fact, a healthy rate of unemployment is at something like 5-6%. Granted 6.4% is above that. But you need to realize that unemployment rates tend to lag behind economic growth. How come?
Easy. Unemployment rates are a measure of how many people are actively searching for a job. If I am unemployed, but not looking for a job I do not count. So, when the economy begins to improve invariably unemployment should have a momentary jump as people respond to positive reports by looking for jobs again.
The next thing, these are monthly numbers that will have to be averaged against the other months in the year to produce the actual annual rate at the end of the year. Sure, the trend is scary, but it should only concern us if it continues for more than a few months.
Finally, I think the New York Times and the AP are due for criticism. The following paragraph from the AP story ran in the New York Times is misleading:
While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.
Using the word recession implies to the reader that the economy is in recession. By economic definition a recession only applies to GDP growth that is negative for more than 2 quarters. Applying the term recession to unemployment figures creates a false impression that we are in a state of recession when in fact we are not. It would be more appropriate to say that the job market is still weak.
Jul 1, 2003
Gay Marriage
Simply put, I don't understand why Gay marriage is so important to Homosexuals. As far as I can tell the primary arguments are: 1)To grant homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy--the "equal rights" argument, 2)To "normalize" the Gay population. Yes, sure, but I still don't get it.
Andrew Sullivan, a Gay man who purports to be a Conservative on so many issues, makes both of these arguments quite forcefully. However, Sullivan and friends are mistaken if they think that they are Conservative. If a Modern Liberal looks to government to solve problems, then a Conservative thinks that government should leave things alone and allow the cultural institutions to define the moral. By this definition, activism for legalizing Gay marriage seems quite Liberal.
The real problem is that the Gay movement is confused. The Gay movement really wants one thing: the end of prejudice about what they are and what they do. Not that anyone should blame them. In spite of polls that show increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the Gay person knows that they are still abnormal, or at least presumed to be.
Interestingly enough, it might be argued that the reason for rising acceptance is that Gays have come out of the proverbial closet. This simple strategy, more so than government allowance for Gay Pride events, has caused the mainstream heterosexual to come face to face with the reality that friends, family, and colleagues are Gay. It is no surprise therefore that more and more people are coming to view Gays more sympathetically.
If the Gay movement wants to overcome prejudice a continued effort to present individuals as normal contributing members of society will be far more successful than to agitate for government recognition through marriage. Afterall, marriage is not really applicable to a Gay person. I don't understand why they would want it. From what I can tell marriage has only two possible roots. Either you believe it is rooted in religion or in traditional culture. The involvment of government is further explainable for reasons that do not relate to Gays.
Roots Of Marriage
While I can't speak too clearly about all religions, I am clear enough about Christianity. Either God meant it right from the start when he joined Adam and Eve, or Moses made it up, but one way or another it is clear that the roots of Christianity teach followers to marry as man and woman. There was no requirement for matrimony for those who would choose alternative life styles. From this perspective Gays and even the government should likly stay away from marriage all together. Why would God command such a thing? Does it matter for the political debate? Only if this is the only reason for marriage where the government is involved, in which case the agenda should be to stop government involvement in marriage.
There is, however, a cultural legacy. Let us assume for the moment that we are not Christian, would we have reason to sanction marriage? The Chinese culture is instructive on this note since it is very hard to know for sure where Christian influence begins and ends in Western civilization. As far as I can tell the religions of China have nothing much to say about homosexuality. There is anecdotal evidence that homosexual acts were even practiced in the Imperial Court. Yet, marriage in Chinese culture is quite clearly between man and woman. Granted it seems to allow for polygamy and tolerate extra-marital adventure, but nonetheless marriage is male to female. Why? Could it be because marriage was the best contract for ensuring economic survival in traditional societies? For instance, culturally it is understood that sons will care for geriatric parents--there is no need for retirement planning. Daughters? They become, quite literally, the daughters of their in-laws. Because of this the marriage agreement involves a transfer of money from the groom's family to the bride's family. Marriage is the defining contract that guides these family relationships.
Government Sticks It's Nose Under The Tent
So why do governments become involved? Historically there appears to be a need to tax--not that this has gone away. Government wants to know where you are and what household you are a part of. In exchange government granted a few conveniences along the way. Sure, many of these "privileges" have been expanded in the last century and treated as if they were "rights", but at the end of the day they are simply rewards for following the government preferred track for marrying. Interestingly enough the early progressive movement seems to have manipulated the government role in order to achieve one other purpose: protection of the members of the contract. This made sense when women appeared to be the lesser in an unequal relationship. And today it makes sense for children who are not free and willing partners to the contract. But, the last time I checked the Gay argument was all about letting consenting adults do what they want to do--if this is the case then who needs to be protected?
Conclusion
All of this being the case, it is hard to understand the need for Gay marriage. In essence the Gay movement hopes that by forcing the "privilege" of marriage that prejudice will go away. It may very well go away, but it will not be because of marriage vows. I am not willing to believe that Gay marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage, unless you mean that it will make it all seem a ridiculus sham. What I am willing to argue is that Gay people have no need for the institution of marriage. If it is "privileges" that are wanted then we should design contractual supports to enable things such as shared property. Just leave marriage to be what it has always been.
Simply put, I don't understand why Gay marriage is so important to Homosexuals. As far as I can tell the primary arguments are: 1)To grant homosexual couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy--the "equal rights" argument, 2)To "normalize" the Gay population. Yes, sure, but I still don't get it.
Andrew Sullivan, a Gay man who purports to be a Conservative on so many issues, makes both of these arguments quite forcefully. However, Sullivan and friends are mistaken if they think that they are Conservative. If a Modern Liberal looks to government to solve problems, then a Conservative thinks that government should leave things alone and allow the cultural institutions to define the moral. By this definition, activism for legalizing Gay marriage seems quite Liberal.
The real problem is that the Gay movement is confused. The Gay movement really wants one thing: the end of prejudice about what they are and what they do. Not that anyone should blame them. In spite of polls that show increasing acceptance of homosexuality, the Gay person knows that they are still abnormal, or at least presumed to be.
Interestingly enough, it might be argued that the reason for rising acceptance is that Gays have come out of the proverbial closet. This simple strategy, more so than government allowance for Gay Pride events, has caused the mainstream heterosexual to come face to face with the reality that friends, family, and colleagues are Gay. It is no surprise therefore that more and more people are coming to view Gays more sympathetically.
If the Gay movement wants to overcome prejudice a continued effort to present individuals as normal contributing members of society will be far more successful than to agitate for government recognition through marriage. Afterall, marriage is not really applicable to a Gay person. I don't understand why they would want it. From what I can tell marriage has only two possible roots. Either you believe it is rooted in religion or in traditional culture. The involvment of government is further explainable for reasons that do not relate to Gays.
Roots Of Marriage
While I can't speak too clearly about all religions, I am clear enough about Christianity. Either God meant it right from the start when he joined Adam and Eve, or Moses made it up, but one way or another it is clear that the roots of Christianity teach followers to marry as man and woman. There was no requirement for matrimony for those who would choose alternative life styles. From this perspective Gays and even the government should likly stay away from marriage all together. Why would God command such a thing? Does it matter for the political debate? Only if this is the only reason for marriage where the government is involved, in which case the agenda should be to stop government involvement in marriage.
There is, however, a cultural legacy. Let us assume for the moment that we are not Christian, would we have reason to sanction marriage? The Chinese culture is instructive on this note since it is very hard to know for sure where Christian influence begins and ends in Western civilization. As far as I can tell the religions of China have nothing much to say about homosexuality. There is anecdotal evidence that homosexual acts were even practiced in the Imperial Court. Yet, marriage in Chinese culture is quite clearly between man and woman. Granted it seems to allow for polygamy and tolerate extra-marital adventure, but nonetheless marriage is male to female. Why? Could it be because marriage was the best contract for ensuring economic survival in traditional societies? For instance, culturally it is understood that sons will care for geriatric parents--there is no need for retirement planning. Daughters? They become, quite literally, the daughters of their in-laws. Because of this the marriage agreement involves a transfer of money from the groom's family to the bride's family. Marriage is the defining contract that guides these family relationships.
Government Sticks It's Nose Under The Tent
So why do governments become involved? Historically there appears to be a need to tax--not that this has gone away. Government wants to know where you are and what household you are a part of. In exchange government granted a few conveniences along the way. Sure, many of these "privileges" have been expanded in the last century and treated as if they were "rights", but at the end of the day they are simply rewards for following the government preferred track for marrying. Interestingly enough the early progressive movement seems to have manipulated the government role in order to achieve one other purpose: protection of the members of the contract. This made sense when women appeared to be the lesser in an unequal relationship. And today it makes sense for children who are not free and willing partners to the contract. But, the last time I checked the Gay argument was all about letting consenting adults do what they want to do--if this is the case then who needs to be protected?
Conclusion
All of this being the case, it is hard to understand the need for Gay marriage. In essence the Gay movement hopes that by forcing the "privilege" of marriage that prejudice will go away. It may very well go away, but it will not be because of marriage vows. I am not willing to believe that Gay marriage would somehow destroy the institution of marriage, unless you mean that it will make it all seem a ridiculus sham. What I am willing to argue is that Gay people have no need for the institution of marriage. If it is "privileges" that are wanted then we should design contractual supports to enable things such as shared property. Just leave marriage to be what it has always been.
Kaus on Medicare
If you scroll to Thursday, June 26, 2003 at this link, you will see a question raised by Mickey Kaus about Conservative arguments concerning the Medicare debate. In case you can't find it here it is:
Kf on drugs: I'm confused!
1) I understand why, as Holman Jenkins Jr. argued in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, drug companies need to make big profits on successful drugs if they are going to finance the risky research to discover new drugs, which involves following a lot of false leads.
The occasional gusher provides investors a return on all the money thrown down dry holes.
I also understand why, if there's a drug benefit within a government-run Medicare system (what Democrats want), the government might use its massive buying power to demand low "dictated prices that don't cover" the costs of discovering those new and better drugs.
2) And I also understand why, as Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation argued in the New York Post yesterday, "new entitlements always wind up costing far, far more than initial estimates," and the Medicare drug entitlement is likely to be no exception. I understand why, under the alternative, partly-privatized program initially proposed by President Bush, in which you could choose from a variety of private health plans, "[m]arket pressures" would "control costs."
3) What I don't understand is how both these right-wing critiques of the Senate's prescription drug entitlement can be true at the same time. How does the partly-privatized plan give more money to drug companies (solving problem #1) while simultaneously being cheaper (solving problem #2)? I should think that, as a crude first approximation, controlling costs through "market pressures" would involve controlling the cost of drugs (substituting generics, bargaining down prices, making sure treatment is warranted, etc.)--which would mean less money for the drug companies to use to reward investors and fund risky research.
Either the drug companies get more money or they get less money, right? A system that sends them more money will be more expensive, no? Or is the miracle of the market even more miraculous than I thought?
I would like to help explain it to Kaus:
The two arguments he sights seem contradictory.
The negotiated plan provides a socialized drug benefit (arguably part of the compromise legislation). If I focus on the drug prices to be negotiated by a powerful customer, I would conclude that the government may deprive the drug companies of research cash by driving down the cost of the drug to the consumer (Wall St Journal point).
At the same time if I instead focus on the ADMINISTRATIVE costs that bureacracies entail then I might believe that the overall entitlement cost will be out of control even if individuals experience a cheaper drug price (Heritage point).
So, yes, the government may negotiate better prices (assuming Senators from Conn and NJ don't press for sweetheart deals) which will be passed on to the consumer, but the bureacratic costs of negotiating will be passed on to the taxpayer. Or put another way, will the government calculate pill prices to include government adminsitrative costs?
Ultimately, per unit costs are lower to the consumer, marginal changes in actual demand take place, and the government buereaucratic cost of maintaining the program gets passed on to general tax payers as it grows out of control.
You see there is a misconception amongst Liberals that Conservatives are mean (therefore we might try to lie about how a prescription drug benefit would work). But, what we really are is realistic. The Wall St. Journal focused on a component, while the Heritage Foundation focused on the overall cost. We realize that the government coming in to be a large mover in the marketplace is not cost free. Invariably there will need to be administrators, regulators, policy paper writers, a building, janitors, a new department head, and on and on. Sure, insurance companies will have similar staff to process claims, but why not put the same market powers to work on the administrative staff that the plan already places on drug companies?
Just think about it.
If you scroll to Thursday, June 26, 2003 at this link, you will see a question raised by Mickey Kaus about Conservative arguments concerning the Medicare debate. In case you can't find it here it is:
Kf on drugs: I'm confused!
1) I understand why, as Holman Jenkins Jr. argued in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, drug companies need to make big profits on successful drugs if they are going to finance the risky research to discover new drugs, which involves following a lot of false leads.
The occasional gusher provides investors a return on all the money thrown down dry holes.
I also understand why, if there's a drug benefit within a government-run Medicare system (what Democrats want), the government might use its massive buying power to demand low "dictated prices that don't cover" the costs of discovering those new and better drugs.
2) And I also understand why, as Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation argued in the New York Post yesterday, "new entitlements always wind up costing far, far more than initial estimates," and the Medicare drug entitlement is likely to be no exception. I understand why, under the alternative, partly-privatized program initially proposed by President Bush, in which you could choose from a variety of private health plans, "[m]arket pressures" would "control costs."
3) What I don't understand is how both these right-wing critiques of the Senate's prescription drug entitlement can be true at the same time. How does the partly-privatized plan give more money to drug companies (solving problem #1) while simultaneously being cheaper (solving problem #2)? I should think that, as a crude first approximation, controlling costs through "market pressures" would involve controlling the cost of drugs (substituting generics, bargaining down prices, making sure treatment is warranted, etc.)--which would mean less money for the drug companies to use to reward investors and fund risky research.
Either the drug companies get more money or they get less money, right? A system that sends them more money will be more expensive, no? Or is the miracle of the market even more miraculous than I thought?
I would like to help explain it to Kaus:
The two arguments he sights seem contradictory.
The negotiated plan provides a socialized drug benefit (arguably part of the compromise legislation). If I focus on the drug prices to be negotiated by a powerful customer, I would conclude that the government may deprive the drug companies of research cash by driving down the cost of the drug to the consumer (Wall St Journal point).
At the same time if I instead focus on the ADMINISTRATIVE costs that bureacracies entail then I might believe that the overall entitlement cost will be out of control even if individuals experience a cheaper drug price (Heritage point).
So, yes, the government may negotiate better prices (assuming Senators from Conn and NJ don't press for sweetheart deals) which will be passed on to the consumer, but the bureacratic costs of negotiating will be passed on to the taxpayer. Or put another way, will the government calculate pill prices to include government adminsitrative costs?
Ultimately, per unit costs are lower to the consumer, marginal changes in actual demand take place, and the government buereaucratic cost of maintaining the program gets passed on to general tax payers as it grows out of control.
You see there is a misconception amongst Liberals that Conservatives are mean (therefore we might try to lie about how a prescription drug benefit would work). But, what we really are is realistic. The Wall St. Journal focused on a component, while the Heritage Foundation focused on the overall cost. We realize that the government coming in to be a large mover in the marketplace is not cost free. Invariably there will need to be administrators, regulators, policy paper writers, a building, janitors, a new department head, and on and on. Sure, insurance companies will have similar staff to process claims, but why not put the same market powers to work on the administrative staff that the plan already places on drug companies?
Just think about it.
Jun 30, 2003
Personal vs. Principle
Much of politics can be defined by the contrast of personal views with views based on principle.
The New York Times has published an Op-Ed by Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this piece, Mr. Fish tries to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas may actually be speaking out of principle, not some obtuse personal emotion about racial preferences.
As I read this piece I pondered the difference between personal and principle. Let me give some examples.
If I was Black, I could personally benefit from racial preferences. I would know that I could apply to prestigious schools and be more likely to be accepted and possibly offered nice scholarships. If asked if I am in favor of the specific preference I would most likely be since it is to my personal advantage. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer benefits to accrue to any individual for reasons of race I might be against such a system.
I have two mentally handicapped siblings. On a personal level I prefer that the government provide special transportation options so that they can get to work without the help of my parents. Furthermore, on a personal level, I prefer that the government continue to provide them with a social security check in order to provide for their basic day-to-day expenses. There is no practical way that they will ever be able to contribute to society at any level that matches their cost of maintenance. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer programs to provide free public transit and financial stipends to those who can't seem to be productive in society I might be against such a system.
Dick Cheney was all ready to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1996. One of his daughters informed him that she was Gay. He decided to avoid the publicity this would cause for his family and did not run. I suspect that there was a bigger issue. He knew that his own views about Gay marriage and other Gay issues would be thrown in his face if he ran and it came out that his daughter was Gay. Since this was a sure bet, he knew he would never be able to discuss more important issues that really mattered to him. By time he joined the Bush-Cheney ticket for 2000, he had decided to neuter his stance on Gay marriage and other issues. The personal had overridden the principle.
My son has a genetic disorder. He can essentially live a normal life if he receives regular medical treatment for his ailment. One problem, the treatments can run into the millions of dollars. While my child has been fortunate enough to not require high levels of treatment, we have met families where by the age of three, their child might properly be called a "million dollar man". All but the largest employer insurance programs will not cover treatment. Putting aside the debate about how insurance can distort market prices for drugs, at a personal level I prefer that insurance companies be forced to cover this and that government programs provide coverage when I can't get insurance. On a personal level I prefer things like COBRA and Medicaid when I need these benefits. However, if asked in the abstract whether I should have to pay taxes and higher insurance premiums so that every rare malady can be covered and paid for I might be against such a program.
What is my point? People who are concerned about political ideas can become conflicted. Either we personally experience the emotional or we hear the stories and understand the emotional. For instance, there are many emotional stories about Gay couples that just want to express their mutual love through the vows of marriage. This is the emotional. The interesting thing is that we live in such a rich country that we can worry about trying to fulfill the wishes of every little group. We say: "Are you suffering? We can fix it!" And, in a sense, we can. And so individuals extrapolate from the personal to define the principle. The irony is that the people of poor third world countries can't afford to worry about these things. Is there public transit for handicapped citizens in Guatemala? Do they debate Gay marriage in Bangladesh? Does the government protect those with genetic disorders from disfigurement or death in Rwanda? Do they worry about Affirmative Action in any of these places? If yes to any of these questions, they often do it to the detriment of the entire country.
Clever politicians like Clinton and even Bush 2 have discovered that the secret to election is to focus people on their personal wants and avoid principle. So why did the Bush brief to the Supreme Court look for compromise? So that Blacks would feel that Bush was concerned about getting them into school, while assuring Whites that they had been wronged by the existing system at Michigan. Clinton State of the Union speeches were virtual laundry lists for every possible beneficiary group. Each group concluding that as long as MY personal need is fulfilled then I don't care who else gets something.
Is there a problem with this approach?
There are all kinds of problems. At a high level it is worth wondering if the sacrifice of principle is really a position of integrity. In this sense Clarence Thomas becomes the ultimate in integrity, not ingratitude as Maureen Dowd would argue. Sure, Justice Thomas has benefited from political affirmative action that looks for diversity candidates to balance the political makeup of things like the cabinet and the Supreme Court. But since integrity is an individual issue it is really not of a macro importance that need concern too many of us.
The largest issue is inefficiency. How many innovative ideas are being sidelined in order to afford handicapped transit or universal medical coverage? Put another way, when was the last time a great new invention came out of a heavily socialized economy? Unfortunately, the issuance of benefits does not come without cost. Sure, the actual amount of any individual's taxes that go to provide free transit for my siblings is fairly low. But, if we took that aggregate amount and freed it up for invention what would the aggregate effect be?
Unfortunately, I fear that America is rich enough that we have no way out of the trap. The nature of politics will continue to make the interest of the small groups paramount in the mind of the politician. Campaign finance reform, term limits, or any of your other garden-variety political reforms will make no difference. We are stuck in an ever-rising bidding war for the affection of the focused and energized interest groups. I take my hat off to Clarence Thomas, and others, who are willing to overlook personal benefit and search for, and define, the ideal.
----------------
For the record, I am not in favor of socialized programs for the handicapped, socialized medicine, Gay marriage, or Affirmative Action.
Much of politics can be defined by the contrast of personal views with views based on principle.
The New York Times has published an Op-Ed by Stanley Fish, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this piece, Mr. Fish tries to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas may actually be speaking out of principle, not some obtuse personal emotion about racial preferences.
As I read this piece I pondered the difference between personal and principle. Let me give some examples.
If I was Black, I could personally benefit from racial preferences. I would know that I could apply to prestigious schools and be more likely to be accepted and possibly offered nice scholarships. If asked if I am in favor of the specific preference I would most likely be since it is to my personal advantage. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer benefits to accrue to any individual for reasons of race I might be against such a system.
I have two mentally handicapped siblings. On a personal level I prefer that the government provide special transportation options so that they can get to work without the help of my parents. Furthermore, on a personal level, I prefer that the government continue to provide them with a social security check in order to provide for their basic day-to-day expenses. There is no practical way that they will ever be able to contribute to society at any level that matches their cost of maintenance. However, if asked in the abstract if I prefer programs to provide free public transit and financial stipends to those who can't seem to be productive in society I might be against such a system.
Dick Cheney was all ready to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1996. One of his daughters informed him that she was Gay. He decided to avoid the publicity this would cause for his family and did not run. I suspect that there was a bigger issue. He knew that his own views about Gay marriage and other Gay issues would be thrown in his face if he ran and it came out that his daughter was Gay. Since this was a sure bet, he knew he would never be able to discuss more important issues that really mattered to him. By time he joined the Bush-Cheney ticket for 2000, he had decided to neuter his stance on Gay marriage and other issues. The personal had overridden the principle.
My son has a genetic disorder. He can essentially live a normal life if he receives regular medical treatment for his ailment. One problem, the treatments can run into the millions of dollars. While my child has been fortunate enough to not require high levels of treatment, we have met families where by the age of three, their child might properly be called a "million dollar man". All but the largest employer insurance programs will not cover treatment. Putting aside the debate about how insurance can distort market prices for drugs, at a personal level I prefer that insurance companies be forced to cover this and that government programs provide coverage when I can't get insurance. On a personal level I prefer things like COBRA and Medicaid when I need these benefits. However, if asked in the abstract whether I should have to pay taxes and higher insurance premiums so that every rare malady can be covered and paid for I might be against such a program.
What is my point? People who are concerned about political ideas can become conflicted. Either we personally experience the emotional or we hear the stories and understand the emotional. For instance, there are many emotional stories about Gay couples that just want to express their mutual love through the vows of marriage. This is the emotional. The interesting thing is that we live in such a rich country that we can worry about trying to fulfill the wishes of every little group. We say: "Are you suffering? We can fix it!" And, in a sense, we can. And so individuals extrapolate from the personal to define the principle. The irony is that the people of poor third world countries can't afford to worry about these things. Is there public transit for handicapped citizens in Guatemala? Do they debate Gay marriage in Bangladesh? Does the government protect those with genetic disorders from disfigurement or death in Rwanda? Do they worry about Affirmative Action in any of these places? If yes to any of these questions, they often do it to the detriment of the entire country.
Clever politicians like Clinton and even Bush 2 have discovered that the secret to election is to focus people on their personal wants and avoid principle. So why did the Bush brief to the Supreme Court look for compromise? So that Blacks would feel that Bush was concerned about getting them into school, while assuring Whites that they had been wronged by the existing system at Michigan. Clinton State of the Union speeches were virtual laundry lists for every possible beneficiary group. Each group concluding that as long as MY personal need is fulfilled then I don't care who else gets something.
Is there a problem with this approach?
There are all kinds of problems. At a high level it is worth wondering if the sacrifice of principle is really a position of integrity. In this sense Clarence Thomas becomes the ultimate in integrity, not ingratitude as Maureen Dowd would argue. Sure, Justice Thomas has benefited from political affirmative action that looks for diversity candidates to balance the political makeup of things like the cabinet and the Supreme Court. But since integrity is an individual issue it is really not of a macro importance that need concern too many of us.
The largest issue is inefficiency. How many innovative ideas are being sidelined in order to afford handicapped transit or universal medical coverage? Put another way, when was the last time a great new invention came out of a heavily socialized economy? Unfortunately, the issuance of benefits does not come without cost. Sure, the actual amount of any individual's taxes that go to provide free transit for my siblings is fairly low. But, if we took that aggregate amount and freed it up for invention what would the aggregate effect be?
Unfortunately, I fear that America is rich enough that we have no way out of the trap. The nature of politics will continue to make the interest of the small groups paramount in the mind of the politician. Campaign finance reform, term limits, or any of your other garden-variety political reforms will make no difference. We are stuck in an ever-rising bidding war for the affection of the focused and energized interest groups. I take my hat off to Clarence Thomas, and others, who are willing to overlook personal benefit and search for, and define, the ideal.
----------------
For the record, I am not in favor of socialized programs for the handicapped, socialized medicine, Gay marriage, or Affirmative Action.
Jun 27, 2003
Thurmond and Segregation
On the passing of Strom Thurmond there are many articles expressing the traditional condolences and eulogies. Without a doubt Strom has been an important figure in recent American political history. I will allow the more talented and mainstream press to fill in the details of the eulogies. I would prefer to use this as an opportunity to point out how Strom reflects one of my deep felt beliefs about racism.
There are two ways to consider Strom and his views on segregation. Either he really was a racist that reformed, or he was a politician that said what it took to be elected--in which case his electorate reformed. Not that the civil rights movement ever embraced Strom, but according to the well researched eulogies many Blacks did. Either way, Strom changed.
I believe that the real solution to racism will take 100 years. You can start the clock back at the 1957 Civil Rights Act that Strom filibustered for over 24 hours. Over time new generations have come on line that are not saddled with the racist baggage of the past. Over time old stalwarts of racism will die. Over time other old stalwarts will change. And with these changes racism towards Blacks will die as surely as racism towards other groups has died over time. It will take longer for Blacks than many other groups since the problem was much greater and more ingrained in culture than any other group has experienced. But, it will end. For all my criticism of Sandra Day O'Conner's recent court decision, she is right that in 25 years the need for "remedies" should pass away.
Here is to hoping that racism and all the negative things that have resulted because of it will pass away.
On the passing of Strom Thurmond there are many articles expressing the traditional condolences and eulogies. Without a doubt Strom has been an important figure in recent American political history. I will allow the more talented and mainstream press to fill in the details of the eulogies. I would prefer to use this as an opportunity to point out how Strom reflects one of my deep felt beliefs about racism.
There are two ways to consider Strom and his views on segregation. Either he really was a racist that reformed, or he was a politician that said what it took to be elected--in which case his electorate reformed. Not that the civil rights movement ever embraced Strom, but according to the well researched eulogies many Blacks did. Either way, Strom changed.
I believe that the real solution to racism will take 100 years. You can start the clock back at the 1957 Civil Rights Act that Strom filibustered for over 24 hours. Over time new generations have come on line that are not saddled with the racist baggage of the past. Over time old stalwarts of racism will die. Over time other old stalwarts will change. And with these changes racism towards Blacks will die as surely as racism towards other groups has died over time. It will take longer for Blacks than many other groups since the problem was much greater and more ingrained in culture than any other group has experienced. But, it will end. For all my criticism of Sandra Day O'Conner's recent court decision, she is right that in 25 years the need for "remedies" should pass away.
Here is to hoping that racism and all the negative things that have resulted because of it will pass away.
Jun 26, 2003
My First Contributer
One of the goals for my blog is to be more than a normal blog. I know that may not mean much since blogs can have many forms. Let me explain. Initially I had a vision for creating an online magazine. I would write stuff, and invite others to also create content. My hope would be to have amateur opinion holders express their views. Of course, I would create a lot of the content myself and use it as a reference to submit my own articles for further publication. I shared my thoughts with a couple of friends. One of them simply replied: "Oh, you mean a blog?" To be honest I was not for sure since I only had a passing sense of what blogs were. I did a little research and concluded a blog was the way to go, but with a link to an index of articles by subject. Even then, I don't want my blog to so much focus on the rapid fire approach as much as thoughtful pieces. For example, I am currently researching a piece on term limits--not timely at all, but possibly a significant issue.
The blog is in place. I am still learning things. Like how to keep a regular schedule. I still have typos and I am not sure that all that many people read it. Up until now the index has only had stuff from me. I realized as I created the index that I could simply point right back to archived blog entries. This may also be the avenue for including the submissions of others--by the way, I invite all readers to submit articles. To that end I have received my first submission.
This piece, in an unemotional way, offers an alternative method for evaluating the issue of abortion. Based on the idea of Pascal's Wager, this approach poses the question: are you willing to bet that abortion is not murder? This is close to what has often been my personal conclusion. Since I can not be sure exactly when a new life begins, and since technology continues to push the envelope on how early a baby can survive outside of the mother's womb, I must err on the side of protecting the unborn child. In essence I am willing to gamble that abortion is murder. I hope readers will enjoy this as I have.
The Abortion Wager
One of the goals for my blog is to be more than a normal blog. I know that may not mean much since blogs can have many forms. Let me explain. Initially I had a vision for creating an online magazine. I would write stuff, and invite others to also create content. My hope would be to have amateur opinion holders express their views. Of course, I would create a lot of the content myself and use it as a reference to submit my own articles for further publication. I shared my thoughts with a couple of friends. One of them simply replied: "Oh, you mean a blog?" To be honest I was not for sure since I only had a passing sense of what blogs were. I did a little research and concluded a blog was the way to go, but with a link to an index of articles by subject. Even then, I don't want my blog to so much focus on the rapid fire approach as much as thoughtful pieces. For example, I am currently researching a piece on term limits--not timely at all, but possibly a significant issue.
The blog is in place. I am still learning things. Like how to keep a regular schedule. I still have typos and I am not sure that all that many people read it. Up until now the index has only had stuff from me. I realized as I created the index that I could simply point right back to archived blog entries. This may also be the avenue for including the submissions of others--by the way, I invite all readers to submit articles. To that end I have received my first submission.
This piece, in an unemotional way, offers an alternative method for evaluating the issue of abortion. Based on the idea of Pascal's Wager, this approach poses the question: are you willing to bet that abortion is not murder? This is close to what has often been my personal conclusion. Since I can not be sure exactly when a new life begins, and since technology continues to push the envelope on how early a baby can survive outside of the mother's womb, I must err on the side of protecting the unborn child. In essence I am willing to gamble that abortion is murder. I hope readers will enjoy this as I have.
The Abortion Wager
Sodomy
I intended to ignore this issue. To be honest I just think it is a non-issue unless you are gay. Presumably I could venture the entire 'this is a legislative issue that the courts should have stayed out of' argument. But, at the end of the day conservatives still need to decide where we stand when the legislative battle takes place. Not to go off on a tangent, but it seems that sometimes we get caught up in arguing the legalities of venue when we might just want to confront the issue.
I confess to being an avid reader of National Review Online's The Corner. I tell you this because I am essentially posting my reactions to posts from The Corner. And NRO. There has been much banter about an Op-Ed piece that Jonah Goldberg published which essentially made the case that conservatives have lost the cultural war on gay issues and should negotiate a surrender.
Today, Jonah had this to say:
But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.
Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.
This is what I sent to Jonah in an email about the similarity:
--------------
They are not all that dissimilar. Both are frowned upon by religious belief and social norm, yet offer the clear argument that what I do as a consenting adult is my choice. As a moral issue they both are bothersome. While I am not aware of studies on this, it might be argued that both are addictive. Sure, people may find one more repugnant than the other, but from an ideological agenda perspective they are equal.
As conservatives we are essentially stuck on the same old arguments in both cases. We just feel it is wrong to do these things. Cultural norms need to be respected and if a community of people want to legislate community values where does the constitution rightfully get in the way of this?
Of course one might argue that we are bigoted against the druggie and the sodomizer.
Conservatives really only split when we wonder if legislation should reinforce cultural norms. For me, the real concern is tools for teaching my children. I think this is what legislated cultural values ultimately are about. How do I explain to my kid that sodomy and drugs are bad him? I should be able to give educated explanations about lower life expectancy in both cases, but how much harder is it for a kid to understand that it is bad in spite of being legal? Has anyone tried to think how illogical all the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns sound? "I can do it but you can't." "Why?" "Because I am old enough to know what I am doing." I never bought that as a teenager--not that I am addicted to anything.
This may be weak, but at the end of the day I like the cultural norms we have and I would kind of like to keep them around.
-------------------
And I think it would be interesting for readers to read my reply to the original Goldberg Op-Ed piece:
-------------------
Your facts are correct. We ARE losing the fight. But the question is why? And can we turn it around? We are losing because it has been effectively painted as a religious conservative nut issue. And to be honest, arguments about slippery slopes are hard to prove and only represent fear. We need to change the debate points and rethink our approach.
As long as the debate is fairness vs. slippery slopes then we lose. We lose because we also believe in fairness and the slope from 10 years ago to today has not been all that hurtful (or so we think). It is not that I deny the slippery slope, it is that it is not a persuasive argument.
At the end of the day, the real objective of Sullivan and friends is to no longer have someone look at them and think: "you faggot!" They falsely assume that social prestige items like parades, marriage, and parts in sit-coms will change this. For many it may. But, from what I can see what has had the greatest effect is that as gays have come out publicly more and more people discover they "know" someone who is gay. I personally have a cousin and high school buddy. This makes me unwilling to be "unfair" and willing to stop thinking: "you faggot!"
The real argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with slopes. But to point out two things: 1)Natural cultural progression is already normalizing gays and in the finest conservative tradition doing nothing will overcome the bigotedness. 2)State sanctioning of marriage has a cultural/libertarian reason unrelated to religion. Married people make decisions that affect the lives of others (namely children) and so society has a compelling reason to become involved. Gay sex will NEVER produce a kid without any contractual protection, BUT heterosexual sex may. Are there any illegitimate children from gay weekends in the Poconos? No. The state has no compelling reason to sanction the marriage. All the other "rights" that the state has attached to marriage by default can be attached by alternative measures or private contract since there are no accidental parties to a gay union. Adoption? Simply stipulate in the adoption agreement what role the state plays in the adoptive relationship.
Too many people, including heterosexuals, mistakenly view marriage with romatic notions about status. Maybe within a church this may be true, but I can stick to a religion that rejects gay unions and marriage as status only. The state is involved for one and only one reason. Gays need not apply.
I intended to ignore this issue. To be honest I just think it is a non-issue unless you are gay. Presumably I could venture the entire 'this is a legislative issue that the courts should have stayed out of' argument. But, at the end of the day conservatives still need to decide where we stand when the legislative battle takes place. Not to go off on a tangent, but it seems that sometimes we get caught up in arguing the legalities of venue when we might just want to confront the issue.
I confess to being an avid reader of National Review Online's The Corner. I tell you this because I am essentially posting my reactions to posts from The Corner. And NRO. There has been much banter about an Op-Ed piece that Jonah Goldberg published which essentially made the case that conservatives have lost the cultural war on gay issues and should negotiate a surrender.
Today, Jonah had this to say:
But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.
Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.
This is what I sent to Jonah in an email about the similarity:
--------------
They are not all that dissimilar. Both are frowned upon by religious belief and social norm, yet offer the clear argument that what I do as a consenting adult is my choice. As a moral issue they both are bothersome. While I am not aware of studies on this, it might be argued that both are addictive. Sure, people may find one more repugnant than the other, but from an ideological agenda perspective they are equal.
As conservatives we are essentially stuck on the same old arguments in both cases. We just feel it is wrong to do these things. Cultural norms need to be respected and if a community of people want to legislate community values where does the constitution rightfully get in the way of this?
Of course one might argue that we are bigoted against the druggie and the sodomizer.
Conservatives really only split when we wonder if legislation should reinforce cultural norms. For me, the real concern is tools for teaching my children. I think this is what legislated cultural values ultimately are about. How do I explain to my kid that sodomy and drugs are bad him? I should be able to give educated explanations about lower life expectancy in both cases, but how much harder is it for a kid to understand that it is bad in spite of being legal? Has anyone tried to think how illogical all the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns sound? "I can do it but you can't." "Why?" "Because I am old enough to know what I am doing." I never bought that as a teenager--not that I am addicted to anything.
This may be weak, but at the end of the day I like the cultural norms we have and I would kind of like to keep them around.
-------------------
And I think it would be interesting for readers to read my reply to the original Goldberg Op-Ed piece:
-------------------
Your facts are correct. We ARE losing the fight. But the question is why? And can we turn it around? We are losing because it has been effectively painted as a religious conservative nut issue. And to be honest, arguments about slippery slopes are hard to prove and only represent fear. We need to change the debate points and rethink our approach.
As long as the debate is fairness vs. slippery slopes then we lose. We lose because we also believe in fairness and the slope from 10 years ago to today has not been all that hurtful (or so we think). It is not that I deny the slippery slope, it is that it is not a persuasive argument.
At the end of the day, the real objective of Sullivan and friends is to no longer have someone look at them and think: "you faggot!" They falsely assume that social prestige items like parades, marriage, and parts in sit-coms will change this. For many it may. But, from what I can see what has had the greatest effect is that as gays have come out publicly more and more people discover they "know" someone who is gay. I personally have a cousin and high school buddy. This makes me unwilling to be "unfair" and willing to stop thinking: "you faggot!"
The real argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with slopes. But to point out two things: 1)Natural cultural progression is already normalizing gays and in the finest conservative tradition doing nothing will overcome the bigotedness. 2)State sanctioning of marriage has a cultural/libertarian reason unrelated to religion. Married people make decisions that affect the lives of others (namely children) and so society has a compelling reason to become involved. Gay sex will NEVER produce a kid without any contractual protection, BUT heterosexual sex may. Are there any illegitimate children from gay weekends in the Poconos? No. The state has no compelling reason to sanction the marriage. All the other "rights" that the state has attached to marriage by default can be attached by alternative measures or private contract since there are no accidental parties to a gay union. Adoption? Simply stipulate in the adoption agreement what role the state plays in the adoptive relationship.
Too many people, including heterosexuals, mistakenly view marriage with romatic notions about status. Maybe within a church this may be true, but I can stick to a religion that rejects gay unions and marriage as status only. The state is involved for one and only one reason. Gays need not apply.
Natalie and F.U.T.K.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
More on Affirmative Action
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
Jun 24, 2003
The Supremes
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Jun 23, 2003
Bitter Democrats
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
Bill Gates on Spam
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
It's the Spending Stupid!
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Jun 19, 2003
Neocons, Libertarians, and other political movements
Andrew Sullivan has provided an interesting link to this site that gives a theory on who the father of the Neo-Conservative movement is. The verdict? Jimmy Carter. Essentially the case is that as necessity is the mother of invention so was Jimmy Carter the drive that caused the rise of the Neo-Conservative.
This is really not a bad premise. In fact, political leaders of today should consider the lesson carefully. It really can be argued that politics is simply a history of reactions. Why did Republicans flock to George W Bush? After Clinton's Oval Office escapades they hoped that Bush 2 would learn from his father to reverance the office. Why did Democrats elect Clinton, a Southern Democrat? Because the solid South was trending away and the only moderate voices in the party came from the South. Why did they need a moderate voice? Because Reagan had successfully made the case for Conservative principles. Clinton has few achievements, but NAFTA and welfare reform were clearly Conservative approaches that he took in order to capture the middle. And how about Reagan? Yes, he would likely not have been possible had Carter not been such a fool. Reagan essentially ran on the platform of Barry Goldwater. Granted Reagan was a much better public speaker and came from an important state, but there was nothing new to WHAT he said. Reagan was not possible until the Democrats had lost the vision of JFK and old school Republicans like Nixon had ruined the Rockefeller wing of the party. I am generalizing, but the connection is there.
What does this mean for today? I am of the opinion that people choose political inclinations in part as a reaction to the world they come of political age in. How many old people from the Great Depression insisted on being Democrats long after the Democratic party represented their world view? How many liberals gritted their teeth through Bill Clinton? Is it possible that Republicans could make similar misteps? After Bush 1 there was a reaction. How else do you explain the success of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot who are both personality dumb bells? Conservatives of one stripe or another were disappointed in the direction of the Republican party. Today the reaction is in favor of the Libertarian movement. Conservatives who really have no reason to support ideas like the Libertarian view on abortion are driven to the general philosophy in search of something untainted by the political corruption of power which inevitably taints original principles. This is not a bad thing, but it is the reality that faces a politician like George W. Bush. The smart politicians seem to react. So you see Bill Clinton as a reaction to the realization by Democrats that a Liberal first agenda sunk Modale and Dukakis. The Democrats suffer as well--why else did Ralph Nader get so much attention? In fact, George W Bush was supposed to be the answer to Republican slipping in Congress and recent Presidential stumbles. He was commited to the Reagan pillars of tax cuts, less government, a strong defense, and simple moral issues like the right-to-life for the unborn. Sure, he campaigned with a few other messages in order to counter Gore. He has held true to 3 of the 4 issues--really the same way Reagan did. They both fail on the mark of smaller government. They both use the excuse of winning a war and a recession, but where Bush will find himself in trouble is that he can not blame a tax and spend Democratic Congress. I think young Neo-Conservatives forgave Reagan for government growth since most of it was in defense and the rest was part of the political trade-off required with the opposing party controlling congress. But who can Bush blame? Young people of today who are choosing political ideologies will make a tough choice. Do they go Libertarian and abandon social issues that matter or go Conservative and accept larger government than they want? Some make a third choice. They say: "I am a Conservative, not a Republican." While I agree with the sentiment that is expressed by this statement (and actually say this myself), I do sometimes think it is a weak choice. What are we really saying? I think it translates to the same answer any boy gives after kissing an ugly girl: "I don't like her, I was just kissing her." The problem is that for a neo-conservative, in the tradition of what Goldwater and Reagan campaigned for, there are no pretty girls to kiss. When it comes to election time we are Republicans whether we like it or not. If George W Bush wants a lot of kisses he better stop the growth of government or he will lose not because the Democrats offer a compelling choice, but because enough Neo-Conservatives will conclude that they are willing to trade moral conservative issues for less government and make statement votes for Libertarian candidates.
Andrew Sullivan has provided an interesting link to this site that gives a theory on who the father of the Neo-Conservative movement is. The verdict? Jimmy Carter. Essentially the case is that as necessity is the mother of invention so was Jimmy Carter the drive that caused the rise of the Neo-Conservative.
This is really not a bad premise. In fact, political leaders of today should consider the lesson carefully. It really can be argued that politics is simply a history of reactions. Why did Republicans flock to George W Bush? After Clinton's Oval Office escapades they hoped that Bush 2 would learn from his father to reverance the office. Why did Democrats elect Clinton, a Southern Democrat? Because the solid South was trending away and the only moderate voices in the party came from the South. Why did they need a moderate voice? Because Reagan had successfully made the case for Conservative principles. Clinton has few achievements, but NAFTA and welfare reform were clearly Conservative approaches that he took in order to capture the middle. And how about Reagan? Yes, he would likely not have been possible had Carter not been such a fool. Reagan essentially ran on the platform of Barry Goldwater. Granted Reagan was a much better public speaker and came from an important state, but there was nothing new to WHAT he said. Reagan was not possible until the Democrats had lost the vision of JFK and old school Republicans like Nixon had ruined the Rockefeller wing of the party. I am generalizing, but the connection is there.
What does this mean for today? I am of the opinion that people choose political inclinations in part as a reaction to the world they come of political age in. How many old people from the Great Depression insisted on being Democrats long after the Democratic party represented their world view? How many liberals gritted their teeth through Bill Clinton? Is it possible that Republicans could make similar misteps? After Bush 1 there was a reaction. How else do you explain the success of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot who are both personality dumb bells? Conservatives of one stripe or another were disappointed in the direction of the Republican party. Today the reaction is in favor of the Libertarian movement. Conservatives who really have no reason to support ideas like the Libertarian view on abortion are driven to the general philosophy in search of something untainted by the political corruption of power which inevitably taints original principles. This is not a bad thing, but it is the reality that faces a politician like George W. Bush. The smart politicians seem to react. So you see Bill Clinton as a reaction to the realization by Democrats that a Liberal first agenda sunk Modale and Dukakis. The Democrats suffer as well--why else did Ralph Nader get so much attention? In fact, George W Bush was supposed to be the answer to Republican slipping in Congress and recent Presidential stumbles. He was commited to the Reagan pillars of tax cuts, less government, a strong defense, and simple moral issues like the right-to-life for the unborn. Sure, he campaigned with a few other messages in order to counter Gore. He has held true to 3 of the 4 issues--really the same way Reagan did. They both fail on the mark of smaller government. They both use the excuse of winning a war and a recession, but where Bush will find himself in trouble is that he can not blame a tax and spend Democratic Congress. I think young Neo-Conservatives forgave Reagan for government growth since most of it was in defense and the rest was part of the political trade-off required with the opposing party controlling congress. But who can Bush blame? Young people of today who are choosing political ideologies will make a tough choice. Do they go Libertarian and abandon social issues that matter or go Conservative and accept larger government than they want? Some make a third choice. They say: "I am a Conservative, not a Republican." While I agree with the sentiment that is expressed by this statement (and actually say this myself), I do sometimes think it is a weak choice. What are we really saying? I think it translates to the same answer any boy gives after kissing an ugly girl: "I don't like her, I was just kissing her." The problem is that for a neo-conservative, in the tradition of what Goldwater and Reagan campaigned for, there are no pretty girls to kiss. When it comes to election time we are Republicans whether we like it or not. If George W Bush wants a lot of kisses he better stop the growth of government or he will lose not because the Democrats offer a compelling choice, but because enough Neo-Conservatives will conclude that they are willing to trade moral conservative issues for less government and make statement votes for Libertarian candidates.
Hillary
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Conservatives: be afraid, be very afraid.
First let's talk about my Mom. My Mom is an immigrant. She didn't steal across any border in the dark of night, but she nevertheless carried a green card around for years (actually I think it was lost somewhere in her filing cabinet, but you know what I mean). She married the cute American we call Dad and got on some ship to America. She came from Australia, though actually a British Subject by birth. While not my topic for the day, she is now a US citizen and it was a very emotional event to see her become a citizen. Anyway, Mom (or as the Aussies would say: Mum) is essentially a moderate Republican. She is more moderate than Dad or me. I don't think she is so much a liberal as she is just not as conservative as we are. She just feels bad for the little guys in the world and thinks that someone needs to help them out. As long as I have cared to know her political choices she has indicated a preference for the Republican candidate for President--granted until a year ago she couldn't vote so it mattered little. Apparently Mom reads my blog because I got a comment from her on my recent post about Hillary Clinton's book. My Mom had this to say:
I was interested in what you had to say about Hillary. You are probably right, and yes she is a smart cookie. Can you believe it dad bought me her book? It is interesting so far, I have only read the part about her childhood. The thing is I identify well with that time period so I find it interesting to read. I used to think of her as stuck up and snotty but now I am changing my mind. I can see where she is coming from.
Conservatives command at most 40% of the vote. We can't stand Hillary. In polls only the 40% of hard core liberal democrats like Hillary. Right now, the remaining 20% essentially dislike her but are not sure why. I would propose that Mom fits into that category--"but now I am changing my mind"...
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Michael Barone mistakenly thinks that Hillary has an electoral ceiling. Republicans would be mistaken to take current polls to the bank. As I said before, Hillary is putting together one of the best long term campaign plans ever devised. She may not act on it (sort of like a Colin Powell), but she will be able to choose. The 20% in the middle are the target of the book. The shrill attacks by conservatives about her dishonesty make her look the victim while helping to promote her book. Then when the reader reads the book they are impressed and start to see her just the way she wants to be seen.
I think Hillary is very able. If ever there was a woman who had the personal qualifications Hillary is that woman. If we are going to beat her we need to confront her on the political issues of the day and simply accept her account of how she found out the truth about Monica. We need to show the 20% that even though Hillary is a smart, even likable, person that she is on the wrong side of issues that matter.
Jun 18, 2003
Public Transit
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
A few months ago a friend asked me for my take on public transit. I have cleaned up my response to him and am making it available to you. Which by the way prompts me to point out that most of my long posts can be found by topic by following this link. As always, I welcome feedback on this and other topics.
Jun 17, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)