Nuke the SOTU Controversy
State of the Union speech delivered January 28, 2003.
The IAEA makes its report to the United Nations Security Council that the claims by British Intelligence about purchasing Uranium from Niger are "not authentic" on March 7, 2003.
War begins in Iraq on March 19, 2003.
Exactly how does the faulty Uranium claim become THE justification for war with Iraq?
Jul 16, 2003
Iraq
I have just posted comments on 9/11, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. My point being to place comments on Iraq in perspective.
I agree with those who say we will be in Iraq longer than implied and that this will require more soldiers than was initially hoped for. I don't feel that this is a criticism of going to war with Iraq.
I agree that the Uranium mistake looks bad. Examples of intelligence errors can be found throughout history and consequently I am unwilling to translate the current snafu into a conspiracy. Do we really want to bring out the lists of mistakes? It appears that our intelligence people underestimated Osama bin Laden before 9/11, does anyone for a moment believe that we let that happen? Or have we forgotten the stories a while back about Bush being briefed in August of 2001 about the possibility that terrorists might try to hijack airplanes? We can take these intelligence failures back through every presidency. Mistakes of judgment? Happens all the time.
But where I differ is the implication that this somehow means that we made a mistake in going to war with Iraq.
In my opinion the war was always about one thing: the axis of evil. And for me the axis was always something different than the way it came to be spinned. Yes, I am saying that Bush got it right by accident. The real thread that binds the axis of evil is a willingness to defy US policy in a way that defies all civilized conventions while holding hostage the economic interests of the world.
To make my point lets actually discuss why others failed to make the axis list. Syria is clearly a sponsor of terrorism. They make life really hard for Israel. If Syria were gone the Israelis and Palestinians would settle out of court. Yet, Syria has been very adept at not channeling these actions towards the US. In fact, they make efforts at diplomatic overtures to the US all of the time. How about Libya? After Reagan scared the bejeezers out of Khadafi he began singing a new tune. He has handed over the accused in the Lockerbie case and offered a settlement to the families. He wants to rejoin the civilized world. How about Cuba? Without a doubt they are a thorn in our side. But beyond long speeches by Castro, they have been relatively benign since the end of the Cold War.
Members of the Axis have clearly done the equivalent of telling the US to go fly a kite. Iran is the truest sponsor of terrorists in the tradition of Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. The mullahs have clearly rejected any attempts by moderates to try and reenter the civilized world. In essence Iran is the pattern for what Osama would like to establish in Saudi Arabia. They are openly building a nuclear power plant in spite of having free flowing natural gas; they sponsor various terror groups, and destabilize the region. North Korea adheres to a similar pattern. They defy the trend of the fall of communism. They refuse to enter the normal world. They openly build missile technology that finds it way to some of the most troublesome countries (Iran and Iraq to name a few). And on top of it all they seem determined to make the US the focus of their rhetoric. How about Iraq? You fill in the facts. But the point is that the fact that Uranium was or was not purchased was not the reason for war. The reason was to make clear that we would act against countries that were openly defiant of international norms, demonstrated a rhetorical desire to confront the US, and backed up the rhetoric with actions. In this sense Iraq's unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors was enough. It was not necessary that the inspectors would have discovered anything.
Why does this defiance matter? It encourages the likes of Osama bin Laden by demonstrating that US power and influence can be defied without repercussion. This emboldens Osama to defy the US in the same way.
It is also interesting to point out that there is an element of national economic interest involved that is not just a matter of safety. I don't deny that Iraq and Iran clearly have an influence on the safety of the world oil supply. And what of North Korea? Forget that they are trying to make missiles that can reach the US and realize that they already have missiles that can strike Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Why don't you explain the world economic interest involved? While this is not enough to justify action by itself it is the reality that puts the argument for action over the top.
And how about human rights? This is the icing on the cake. And just to be clear, I love icing--I am like Homer Simpson when it comes to icing. But I would be satisfied with my cake, and generally I need some cake with my icing. I will leave it at that.
The justification for war with Iraq was legitimate. Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the stability of the international order. Let's stop trying to score political points and work together to get Iraq on it's feet so we can come home.
I have just posted comments on 9/11, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. My point being to place comments on Iraq in perspective.
I agree with those who say we will be in Iraq longer than implied and that this will require more soldiers than was initially hoped for. I don't feel that this is a criticism of going to war with Iraq.
I agree that the Uranium mistake looks bad. Examples of intelligence errors can be found throughout history and consequently I am unwilling to translate the current snafu into a conspiracy. Do we really want to bring out the lists of mistakes? It appears that our intelligence people underestimated Osama bin Laden before 9/11, does anyone for a moment believe that we let that happen? Or have we forgotten the stories a while back about Bush being briefed in August of 2001 about the possibility that terrorists might try to hijack airplanes? We can take these intelligence failures back through every presidency. Mistakes of judgment? Happens all the time.
But where I differ is the implication that this somehow means that we made a mistake in going to war with Iraq.
In my opinion the war was always about one thing: the axis of evil. And for me the axis was always something different than the way it came to be spinned. Yes, I am saying that Bush got it right by accident. The real thread that binds the axis of evil is a willingness to defy US policy in a way that defies all civilized conventions while holding hostage the economic interests of the world.
To make my point lets actually discuss why others failed to make the axis list. Syria is clearly a sponsor of terrorism. They make life really hard for Israel. If Syria were gone the Israelis and Palestinians would settle out of court. Yet, Syria has been very adept at not channeling these actions towards the US. In fact, they make efforts at diplomatic overtures to the US all of the time. How about Libya? After Reagan scared the bejeezers out of Khadafi he began singing a new tune. He has handed over the accused in the Lockerbie case and offered a settlement to the families. He wants to rejoin the civilized world. How about Cuba? Without a doubt they are a thorn in our side. But beyond long speeches by Castro, they have been relatively benign since the end of the Cold War.
Members of the Axis have clearly done the equivalent of telling the US to go fly a kite. Iran is the truest sponsor of terrorists in the tradition of Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. The mullahs have clearly rejected any attempts by moderates to try and reenter the civilized world. In essence Iran is the pattern for what Osama would like to establish in Saudi Arabia. They are openly building a nuclear power plant in spite of having free flowing natural gas; they sponsor various terror groups, and destabilize the region. North Korea adheres to a similar pattern. They defy the trend of the fall of communism. They refuse to enter the normal world. They openly build missile technology that finds it way to some of the most troublesome countries (Iran and Iraq to name a few). And on top of it all they seem determined to make the US the focus of their rhetoric. How about Iraq? You fill in the facts. But the point is that the fact that Uranium was or was not purchased was not the reason for war. The reason was to make clear that we would act against countries that were openly defiant of international norms, demonstrated a rhetorical desire to confront the US, and backed up the rhetoric with actions. In this sense Iraq's unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors was enough. It was not necessary that the inspectors would have discovered anything.
Why does this defiance matter? It encourages the likes of Osama bin Laden by demonstrating that US power and influence can be defied without repercussion. This emboldens Osama to defy the US in the same way.
It is also interesting to point out that there is an element of national economic interest involved that is not just a matter of safety. I don't deny that Iraq and Iran clearly have an influence on the safety of the world oil supply. And what of North Korea? Forget that they are trying to make missiles that can reach the US and realize that they already have missiles that can strike Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Why don't you explain the world economic interest involved? While this is not enough to justify action by itself it is the reality that puts the argument for action over the top.
And how about human rights? This is the icing on the cake. And just to be clear, I love icing--I am like Homer Simpson when it comes to icing. But I would be satisfied with my cake, and generally I need some cake with my icing. I will leave it at that.
The justification for war with Iraq was legitimate. Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the stability of the international order. Let's stop trying to score political points and work together to get Iraq on it's feet so we can come home.
Afghanistan
Am I the only one who as noticed that the stories on Afghanistan have gone away? Is this because Iraq is more interesting? Or is this because things are really improving? Take a look at this compilation of Afghan news stories and this one. On the one hand the news is good in the sense that there really is an absence of significantly bad news. Yet, on the other hand a US soldier did die in late June and it went unnoticed. It is possible that Afghan news stories have gone away because Iraq provides much more to talk about. It is also possible that Afghanistan is improving and opponents of President Bush would prefer to ignore the story.
I believe that Afghanistan has become nothing more than a policing operation. There is still room for things to fall apart, but it has been a success. We have denied terrorists the comfort of free movement. We have removed a destabilizing presence. And we have made it clear that we will act to protect our interests.
Am I the only one who as noticed that the stories on Afghanistan have gone away? Is this because Iraq is more interesting? Or is this because things are really improving? Take a look at this compilation of Afghan news stories and this one. On the one hand the news is good in the sense that there really is an absence of significantly bad news. Yet, on the other hand a US soldier did die in late June and it went unnoticed. It is possible that Afghan news stories have gone away because Iraq provides much more to talk about. It is also possible that Afghanistan is improving and opponents of President Bush would prefer to ignore the story.
I believe that Afghanistan has become nothing more than a policing operation. There is still room for things to fall apart, but it has been a success. We have denied terrorists the comfort of free movement. We have removed a destabilizing presence. And we have made it clear that we will act to protect our interests.
Vietnam
It is time to put the ghosts of Vietnam to rest. Why did we lose the war? We failed to take the war to the enemy.
I propose as reading (the movie was terrible) the book We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Even in this story, at the very beginning of the war it was obvious that we failed to do this. Unfortunately you sort of need to read the entire book until the end to get the import of this claim.
We never invaded North Vietnam. Why? We were afraid that China or Russia would become involved. That is the real history lesson. Why did Russia fail in Afghanistan? They were unwilling to invade Pakistan for fear that we would become involved. In this sense each was really a battle in a greater Cold War.
If you are unwilling to eliminate the power broker it is unlikely that you can break the will of the soldier. Because new soldiers will be found. Money is available for arms and advisors are available to train. The book implies that there is often ignored evidence that the Chinese actually had soldiers operating along side the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Even this was ignored so as to avoid official direct confrontation.
I don't dispute that the lack of public support back home was significant, or that the press made it sound much worse than it was. But, I think we do ourselves a history lesson disservice by not recognizing the role of the defend only strategy. We extrapolate the wrong lesson and wring our hands over the wrong issues in the case of the war on terror.
It is time to put the ghosts of Vietnam to rest. Why did we lose the war? We failed to take the war to the enemy.
I propose as reading (the movie was terrible) the book We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Even in this story, at the very beginning of the war it was obvious that we failed to do this. Unfortunately you sort of need to read the entire book until the end to get the import of this claim.
We never invaded North Vietnam. Why? We were afraid that China or Russia would become involved. That is the real history lesson. Why did Russia fail in Afghanistan? They were unwilling to invade Pakistan for fear that we would become involved. In this sense each was really a battle in a greater Cold War.
If you are unwilling to eliminate the power broker it is unlikely that you can break the will of the soldier. Because new soldiers will be found. Money is available for arms and advisors are available to train. The book implies that there is often ignored evidence that the Chinese actually had soldiers operating along side the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Even this was ignored so as to avoid official direct confrontation.
I don't dispute that the lack of public support back home was significant, or that the press made it sound much worse than it was. But, I think we do ourselves a history lesson disservice by not recognizing the role of the defend only strategy. We extrapolate the wrong lesson and wring our hands over the wrong issues in the case of the war on terror.
September 11th
I am going out on a limb here, but the underreported story is that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Why is it underreported? Because you have to go out on a limb to report it. If there is an attack tomorrow then I look like a fool. But even if there was an attack tomorrow, I still feel that we are getting to the point that we can safely say this: something is working. Osama, if alive, is on the run. The best he could do is bomb a target in Saudi Arabia using the old method of driving up in a truck. What does this mean? I think it means that the Bush strategy on terrorism is working. What is the strategy? 1)Make things at home more secure, 2)Take the war to the enemy.
No matter the conflict in history there are nations involved. Ultimately these nations need to be held responsible.
I am going out on a limb here, but the underreported story is that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Why is it underreported? Because you have to go out on a limb to report it. If there is an attack tomorrow then I look like a fool. But even if there was an attack tomorrow, I still feel that we are getting to the point that we can safely say this: something is working. Osama, if alive, is on the run. The best he could do is bomb a target in Saudi Arabia using the old method of driving up in a truck. What does this mean? I think it means that the Bush strategy on terrorism is working. What is the strategy? 1)Make things at home more secure, 2)Take the war to the enemy.
No matter the conflict in history there are nations involved. Ultimately these nations need to be held responsible.
Jul 11, 2003
Gay Marriage
Can I just ask one question? If legalizing Gay Marriage doesn't serve to make people any less disgusted with Homosexuality, what will the Gay and Lesbian movement do next? If most Americans still look down on the behavior, what will be the next government policy to remedy this problem?
The gay movement assumes that marriage is some magic elixir that will end prejudice. In fact it will not. It may enable entitlement to social programs that should never have been there in the first place, but it will not end prejudice.
Recently there has been a proposal by Michael Kinsley that we get the government out of the business of sponsoring marriage. A follow-up by John O'Sullivan proposed a modified alternative of Kinsley's proposal.
Now back to my question: will this solve anything? No. The real problem, as I have stated before, is that homosexuals are upset with prejudice. The rest of the rhetoric doesn’t make sense. Sometimes the argument is that the benefits of marriage are a right, but that doesn’t hold water either. What right?
Kinsley actually gives the most honest assessment and proposal I have seen in a while. He clearly identifies why government is involved. There are certain points of the marriage contract that allow the greater society to benefit from the marriage contract being legally enforced by a third party. If there were an independent entity that could have that legal weight (namely churches, which would present a particular constitutional problem) I would not object to the privatization of marriage. Kinsley is correct that each of these things could be separately contracted and legalized. For instance we could begin to involve the government in the protection of children regardless of marriage. In fact, this is already happening because of people living together. Similar discussions could be had on each of the other points.
O’Sullivan follows up with a version that places church marriages in competition with civil marriages and partnerships to determine a winner. Churches would be free to define marriage however they wanted to. Besides raising the constitutional question of who defines a legal “church”, there is actually Supreme Court precedent that currently limits the rights of churches to marry whomever they please. This gets messy really fast. Does this precedent go away? Even if the government is out of the marriage business, do they still declare who churches can and can not marry?
The problem is not that this is necessarily a bad idea, but that it doesn’t solve the real problem. Let’s just assume for a second that we ‘privatize’ marriage as proposed under either proposal. And for the sake of argument let’s just say that we can all agree that polygamy, polyandry, incest, and weird stuff done with animals would still be banned. What will the gay movement do when they realize that people still look at a gay man with that odd look that denotes prejudice? What will they do when some teenagers in Wyoming kill a homosexual teenager in a cruel and horrible way? What will they do when prejudice doesn’t go away? Will they force churches to recognize gay marriages? What will be next?
I wish individuals like Andrew Sullivan would address this question.
There is a lot of tense debate about what is marriage and whether marriage would destroy the basis of society. But I think the real question is to ask how marriage will really achieve the goal that the gay movement has.
The gay movement advocates that marriage is a right. Okay, which of the Declaration of Independence rights does this “marriage right” fit under? Life? No, I think gay men are free to be alive. Liberty? There is no reason to believe that the founding fathers were talking about gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter. The same man who gets all the credit for the Declaration of Independence also gets much credit for the Bill of Rights—anything in there about marriage? Nope. Freedom of speech, religion, the press, bearing arms, from unreasonable criminal procedures maybe, but nothing about marriage—gay or straight. Pursuit of Happiness? This must be the one. Since marriage will make me happy I must have a right to it. Okay, jokes about married men not really being as happy as they thought they would be aside, we need to address this. Jefferson was modifying what John Locke really said. Pursuit of Happiness was originally Property. I for one think he did a great disservice by changing the words. I also think this was a subtle recognition, on his part, that slavery would be inconsistent since slaves were denied this basic right. Of course there are those who simply think that he was trying to spin the words and meant the same thing—pursuit of happiness only being possible by means of possession of property. On the issue of property I think gay couples have the best argument. After all many of the contractual advantages of marriage that government can grant are related to property and economics. Tax filing status and inheritance laws are two simple examples. But domestic partnership legislation in many states already attempts to address these inequities. If this is the only reason to pursue equal protection through marriage then maybe we should simply remove the government from this particular aspect of marriage or grant the same economic benefits to anyone who wants to contractually share financial liabilities. Even with all of that said, as a married person I am not sure that there are all that many property rights to get all that excited about. Tax filing status? It can be argued that in some cases I might be better off if I didn’t share the liability of my spouse. Inheritance? How about the flip side, inherited liability? I am convinced it is a wash. Not to mention that a simple will can achieve the same inheritance protection—therefore nothing is denied.
The real “right” is some nebulous right to share and express love or to be “normal”. As so many heterosexual couples who live together like to argue a certificate is not necessary to express love. Since I actually disagree with these couples, I admit that it does conjure up a level of commitment that is non-existent without the social pressure of marriage. But, where is the social pressure coming from?
The social pressure comes from established cultural tradition that says that marriage means some life long contract that is hard to break. Where did that tradition come from? The same religion and culture that says that homosexuals have no part in marriage! How can the homosexual movement advocate for access to a cultural norm that is so tightly bonded with a belief that homosexuality is a sin? Am I the only one who sees that there is something very illogical about all of this?
Which brings me back to the original question: what is next? Gay marriage will not cause people like myself to stop seeing homosexuality as a sin. While I agree that I cannot legislate MY morality, what will happen when my morality doesn’t change just because the government allows gays to marry? Will gays be satisfied? I personally doubt it. Some honest individuals may very well close up shop, but the movement leaders will never be satisfied. Name one civil rights movement that has declared victory and closed up shop. While individual gays may be satisfied, the gay movement will not.
Can I just ask one question? If legalizing Gay Marriage doesn't serve to make people any less disgusted with Homosexuality, what will the Gay and Lesbian movement do next? If most Americans still look down on the behavior, what will be the next government policy to remedy this problem?
The gay movement assumes that marriage is some magic elixir that will end prejudice. In fact it will not. It may enable entitlement to social programs that should never have been there in the first place, but it will not end prejudice.
Recently there has been a proposal by Michael Kinsley that we get the government out of the business of sponsoring marriage. A follow-up by John O'Sullivan proposed a modified alternative of Kinsley's proposal.
Now back to my question: will this solve anything? No. The real problem, as I have stated before, is that homosexuals are upset with prejudice. The rest of the rhetoric doesn’t make sense. Sometimes the argument is that the benefits of marriage are a right, but that doesn’t hold water either. What right?
Kinsley actually gives the most honest assessment and proposal I have seen in a while. He clearly identifies why government is involved. There are certain points of the marriage contract that allow the greater society to benefit from the marriage contract being legally enforced by a third party. If there were an independent entity that could have that legal weight (namely churches, which would present a particular constitutional problem) I would not object to the privatization of marriage. Kinsley is correct that each of these things could be separately contracted and legalized. For instance we could begin to involve the government in the protection of children regardless of marriage. In fact, this is already happening because of people living together. Similar discussions could be had on each of the other points.
O’Sullivan follows up with a version that places church marriages in competition with civil marriages and partnerships to determine a winner. Churches would be free to define marriage however they wanted to. Besides raising the constitutional question of who defines a legal “church”, there is actually Supreme Court precedent that currently limits the rights of churches to marry whomever they please. This gets messy really fast. Does this precedent go away? Even if the government is out of the marriage business, do they still declare who churches can and can not marry?
The problem is not that this is necessarily a bad idea, but that it doesn’t solve the real problem. Let’s just assume for a second that we ‘privatize’ marriage as proposed under either proposal. And for the sake of argument let’s just say that we can all agree that polygamy, polyandry, incest, and weird stuff done with animals would still be banned. What will the gay movement do when they realize that people still look at a gay man with that odd look that denotes prejudice? What will they do when some teenagers in Wyoming kill a homosexual teenager in a cruel and horrible way? What will they do when prejudice doesn’t go away? Will they force churches to recognize gay marriages? What will be next?
I wish individuals like Andrew Sullivan would address this question.
There is a lot of tense debate about what is marriage and whether marriage would destroy the basis of society. But I think the real question is to ask how marriage will really achieve the goal that the gay movement has.
The gay movement advocates that marriage is a right. Okay, which of the Declaration of Independence rights does this “marriage right” fit under? Life? No, I think gay men are free to be alive. Liberty? There is no reason to believe that the founding fathers were talking about gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter. The same man who gets all the credit for the Declaration of Independence also gets much credit for the Bill of Rights—anything in there about marriage? Nope. Freedom of speech, religion, the press, bearing arms, from unreasonable criminal procedures maybe, but nothing about marriage—gay or straight. Pursuit of Happiness? This must be the one. Since marriage will make me happy I must have a right to it. Okay, jokes about married men not really being as happy as they thought they would be aside, we need to address this. Jefferson was modifying what John Locke really said. Pursuit of Happiness was originally Property. I for one think he did a great disservice by changing the words. I also think this was a subtle recognition, on his part, that slavery would be inconsistent since slaves were denied this basic right. Of course there are those who simply think that he was trying to spin the words and meant the same thing—pursuit of happiness only being possible by means of possession of property. On the issue of property I think gay couples have the best argument. After all many of the contractual advantages of marriage that government can grant are related to property and economics. Tax filing status and inheritance laws are two simple examples. But domestic partnership legislation in many states already attempts to address these inequities. If this is the only reason to pursue equal protection through marriage then maybe we should simply remove the government from this particular aspect of marriage or grant the same economic benefits to anyone who wants to contractually share financial liabilities. Even with all of that said, as a married person I am not sure that there are all that many property rights to get all that excited about. Tax filing status? It can be argued that in some cases I might be better off if I didn’t share the liability of my spouse. Inheritance? How about the flip side, inherited liability? I am convinced it is a wash. Not to mention that a simple will can achieve the same inheritance protection—therefore nothing is denied.
The real “right” is some nebulous right to share and express love or to be “normal”. As so many heterosexual couples who live together like to argue a certificate is not necessary to express love. Since I actually disagree with these couples, I admit that it does conjure up a level of commitment that is non-existent without the social pressure of marriage. But, where is the social pressure coming from?
The social pressure comes from established cultural tradition that says that marriage means some life long contract that is hard to break. Where did that tradition come from? The same religion and culture that says that homosexuals have no part in marriage! How can the homosexual movement advocate for access to a cultural norm that is so tightly bonded with a belief that homosexuality is a sin? Am I the only one who sees that there is something very illogical about all of this?
Which brings me back to the original question: what is next? Gay marriage will not cause people like myself to stop seeing homosexuality as a sin. While I agree that I cannot legislate MY morality, what will happen when my morality doesn’t change just because the government allows gays to marry? Will gays be satisfied? I personally doubt it. Some honest individuals may very well close up shop, but the movement leaders will never be satisfied. Name one civil rights movement that has declared victory and closed up shop. While individual gays may be satisfied, the gay movement will not.
Mr. Optimism
Every time I begin to fret about the economy I just go and read some commentary by Larry Kudlow or watch his show Kudlow and Cramer. His website links to his commentary, but I generally read him here or here.
Every time I begin to fret about the economy I just go and read some commentary by Larry Kudlow or watch his show Kudlow and Cramer. His website links to his commentary, but I generally read him here or here.
Jul 10, 2003
Write the Check and Bush will Sign!
I like this piece comparing Bush to Reagan on the issue of spending. The comparison reveals the truth about Bush being a big spender on anything Congress wants to spend on. I have made this point before right here. In fact, he is so bad I am beginning to disbelieve the argument that he does not want to embarass fellow Republicans.
I like this piece comparing Bush to Reagan on the issue of spending. The comparison reveals the truth about Bush being a big spender on anything Congress wants to spend on. I have made this point before right here. In fact, he is so bad I am beginning to disbelieve the argument that he does not want to embarass fellow Republicans.
Should Conservatives Leave the GOP?
National Review has raised the question of whether conservatives should leave the GOP. They raise some very good concerns. Regular readers will recognize that I am similarly concerned. The Republican Party is as close as we get to a Conservative party in American politics, but it fails to be Conservative when it counts. I have always believed that the key to the American political system is that the major parties attempt to build coalition parties by appealing to as many disparate interests as consistently possible. When I was in school my professors of political science liked to make comparisons between the proportional parliamentary systems of Europe and the American system. Often I found this comparison seemed to reveal a preference for the European system since it tends to include lesser parties. However, I found this somewhat ignorant of reality. In the end the European result is no different than in the US. The view of the lesser party is still negotiated away in a governing coalition. So if the compromise is before the election or after the election is there really a difference? I don't think so. The American system is admittedly a little more gradual, but the effect is the same. So when a Ross Perot comes on the political scene what was the response? Both major parties moved to seize the Perot issues that they felt were most naturally their issues—this resulted in a move to the middle of American politics. Is it any wonder then that in 2000 the significant third parties were on the fringes? Perot's party became a party for an extreme version of Conservatism with the nomination of Pat Buchanan, the Greens produced an extreme brand of liberalism, and the Libertarians arguably mixed the individual liberty extremes conservative and liberal ideals. Where will the next move be? If the parties are smart they will try to compromise to bring in those extremes. There is evidence that the Democrats are doing just that. Green activists frustrated by electoral failure are returning to the campaign of the most liberal Democratic candidate—Howard Dean. I admit I am over-generalizing, but the trend is in this direction. Republicans on the other hand are still fighting the Ross Perot threat. Bush is moving to the middle in a way that carries a very high risk that conservatives will break away if he is not more careful. He hopes to keep them in place by cutting taxes, spending on national defense, and making statements against abortion. For me the chink in the armor is the spending. But there is the potential for more problems as the National Review points out.
Is there a solution? One of the problems that conservatives have is that if we left the GOP we would have a hard time organizing. Greens have a clear vision, as do Libertarians. How do you start a party around the ideology of: 'keep it old'? There are parties out there that have tried by focusing on one issue or another (peruse this list to find many of the parties). The interesting thing is that National Review founder Bill Buckley has established a pattern. As I understand the history, he was key to organizing the Conservative Party of New York State. Election laws in New York allow the Conservative Party to be on the ballot for every election for every office. Many times they simply nominate the Republican candidate to be their candidate and the votes for the candidate are summed across various party nominations in order to determine the vote. This has the effect of allowing the party influence to be known while still allowing the election to gain a consensus. It also has allowed the Conservative party to threaten to nominate another candidate if the Republican candidate ignores all conservative issues. Of course it still means that you end up with moderate Republicans but at least it is understood what the stakes are. Unfortunately, not all states have written their election rules in such a way as to make the New York model work everywhere. If conservatives are frustrated with Republicans, then we should make it our cause to replicate nationally what has been done in New York. Along the way we need to define Conservatism and find a way to include existing fringe Conservative parties if possible. And like the Conservative Party of New York we should recognize that the party we will most often negotiate with would continue to be the Republican Party. I challenge National Review to put their heart where their words are and start the effort—take the Conservative Party national.
National Review has raised the question of whether conservatives should leave the GOP. They raise some very good concerns. Regular readers will recognize that I am similarly concerned. The Republican Party is as close as we get to a Conservative party in American politics, but it fails to be Conservative when it counts. I have always believed that the key to the American political system is that the major parties attempt to build coalition parties by appealing to as many disparate interests as consistently possible. When I was in school my professors of political science liked to make comparisons between the proportional parliamentary systems of Europe and the American system. Often I found this comparison seemed to reveal a preference for the European system since it tends to include lesser parties. However, I found this somewhat ignorant of reality. In the end the European result is no different than in the US. The view of the lesser party is still negotiated away in a governing coalition. So if the compromise is before the election or after the election is there really a difference? I don't think so. The American system is admittedly a little more gradual, but the effect is the same. So when a Ross Perot comes on the political scene what was the response? Both major parties moved to seize the Perot issues that they felt were most naturally their issues—this resulted in a move to the middle of American politics. Is it any wonder then that in 2000 the significant third parties were on the fringes? Perot's party became a party for an extreme version of Conservatism with the nomination of Pat Buchanan, the Greens produced an extreme brand of liberalism, and the Libertarians arguably mixed the individual liberty extremes conservative and liberal ideals. Where will the next move be? If the parties are smart they will try to compromise to bring in those extremes. There is evidence that the Democrats are doing just that. Green activists frustrated by electoral failure are returning to the campaign of the most liberal Democratic candidate—Howard Dean. I admit I am over-generalizing, but the trend is in this direction. Republicans on the other hand are still fighting the Ross Perot threat. Bush is moving to the middle in a way that carries a very high risk that conservatives will break away if he is not more careful. He hopes to keep them in place by cutting taxes, spending on national defense, and making statements against abortion. For me the chink in the armor is the spending. But there is the potential for more problems as the National Review points out.
Is there a solution? One of the problems that conservatives have is that if we left the GOP we would have a hard time organizing. Greens have a clear vision, as do Libertarians. How do you start a party around the ideology of: 'keep it old'? There are parties out there that have tried by focusing on one issue or another (peruse this list to find many of the parties). The interesting thing is that National Review founder Bill Buckley has established a pattern. As I understand the history, he was key to organizing the Conservative Party of New York State. Election laws in New York allow the Conservative Party to be on the ballot for every election for every office. Many times they simply nominate the Republican candidate to be their candidate and the votes for the candidate are summed across various party nominations in order to determine the vote. This has the effect of allowing the party influence to be known while still allowing the election to gain a consensus. It also has allowed the Conservative party to threaten to nominate another candidate if the Republican candidate ignores all conservative issues. Of course it still means that you end up with moderate Republicans but at least it is understood what the stakes are. Unfortunately, not all states have written their election rules in such a way as to make the New York model work everywhere. If conservatives are frustrated with Republicans, then we should make it our cause to replicate nationally what has been done in New York. Along the way we need to define Conservatism and find a way to include existing fringe Conservative parties if possible. And like the Conservative Party of New York we should recognize that the party we will most often negotiate with would continue to be the Republican Party. I challenge National Review to put their heart where their words are and start the effort—take the Conservative Party national.
Buzz Charts
I like this chart about the lack of inflation coming after cuts in income taxes (I also think it is worth taking a look at the website of the chart creator). Let me give my take on the real problem with the economy right now. Take a look at this article first. The problem is that the people who have lost jobs are disproportionately high-income college graduates. This has a numbing effect on the rest of the country. To begin with these people are disproportionately stock market investors who belong to the classification called 'upper middle class'--their stock market investments are largely retirement accounts. They have college degrees. They mostly jumped into computers in some way or another and their family members consider them the 'smart ones'. They earned high incomes and now that they are out of work they are willing to eat up savings, or run up debt, in order to wait for the right job rather than work at Wal-Mart. What impression does this behavior give family members? If my most successful sibling can't find a job, what should I conclude? How about the friend from high school who was doing well and now is unemployed? Is it any wonder that the stock market was hit so badly? The scary thing about this is that the fate of the economy can swing based on what economists call expectations. Simply put, if we all 'think' there is a recession our fears will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And on the political front? Because the actual unemployed people are already mostly Republican they are being patient with Bush. But if a Ross Perot appeared on the stage you can be sure that Bush would lose a lot of votes thus ensuring another Democratic minority mandate.
I like this chart about the lack of inflation coming after cuts in income taxes (I also think it is worth taking a look at the website of the chart creator). Let me give my take on the real problem with the economy right now. Take a look at this article first. The problem is that the people who have lost jobs are disproportionately high-income college graduates. This has a numbing effect on the rest of the country. To begin with these people are disproportionately stock market investors who belong to the classification called 'upper middle class'--their stock market investments are largely retirement accounts. They have college degrees. They mostly jumped into computers in some way or another and their family members consider them the 'smart ones'. They earned high incomes and now that they are out of work they are willing to eat up savings, or run up debt, in order to wait for the right job rather than work at Wal-Mart. What impression does this behavior give family members? If my most successful sibling can't find a job, what should I conclude? How about the friend from high school who was doing well and now is unemployed? Is it any wonder that the stock market was hit so badly? The scary thing about this is that the fate of the economy can swing based on what economists call expectations. Simply put, if we all 'think' there is a recession our fears will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And on the political front? Because the actual unemployed people are already mostly Republican they are being patient with Bush. But if a Ross Perot appeared on the stage you can be sure that Bush would lose a lot of votes thus ensuring another Democratic minority mandate.
Jul 9, 2003
Term Limits
About a month ago I read a piece by David Frum where he mentioned how he had come to be in favor of Congressional term limits. He credited a policy paper from the Cato Institution for his conversion. I took the invitation and read the paper--a very LONG paper. I agree that the paper is enlightening, but not to the same conclusion that it lead David Frum. The paper argues FOR term limits in order to increase Democracy, however I think the arguments used are weak.
A little background. Term limits, put simply, limit the number of terms an elected official can serve in the same office. My own journey on the issue of term limits really began when I realized that Ronald Reagan was term limited and Republicans would have to choose from a less than stellar field of candidates for replacement. It seemed the bitter fruits of a constitutional amendment after FDR's four terms. Politicians had reacted to FDR's virtual control on all power with a new rule to make it never happen again. While I am not sure of the historical arguments made at the time it would have been helpful for the policy paper to go back and contrast the history of that movement.
Admittedly, the policy paper only focuses on legislators by making the simple point that there is something inherently different about the executive and the legislature. I first started thinking specifically about Congressional term limits when Newt Gingrich included it in the Contract With America. As a Conservative Republican I was all for it. In my opinion it was a subtle rhetorical tool within the Contract. The message implied: 'throw the bums out!' And as a bonus, if we lost the 1994 Congressional Elections the message would be clear that had the rules of term limits been in place we would have won. This would further embolden party activists to stay involved. I was for it. I was tired of Democratic control of Congress. There seemed no way to defeat them in an election so I wanted a way to force the power brokers from power. But then we won the election.
In the years since many Congressional Republicans have retired because of a campaign promise they made to term limit themselves regardless. The irony to me has been that these have been the best, brightest, and most conservative members. Conservative in the sense that they understood that the power of the Federal Government and it's officials needed to be controlled. They understood that their word meant something. Yet, it was like unilateral disarmament. No career politicians retired out of shame to match the standard. And these great leaders have mostly disappeared into think tanks or Corporate America. Enforced term limits would have, of course, leveled the playing field and removed the career politicians but I stand by this: do we want to discard the good ones in order to rid ourselves of the bad ones? I for one do not.
The problem is clearly identified in the paper: entrenched legislators appear to wield a disproportionate influence on the outcome of legislative action. But, after reading the paper I am no longer convinced that term limits are the solution.
You see there is the possibility that the facts as presented are misleading. Sure there is no problem with the emotion that we should 'throw the bums out', but I am not convinced that the empirical data as presented proved any adverse effect to the voter electing the legislator.
The main data could be summarized as follows. Legislators seem to get more money appropriated as their length of service in legislative bodies increases. Further this increase is not just straight line—it appears to be exponential. On top of this there is evidence that long serving legislators fail to have strong opponents at election time in spite of not necessarily representing the true political position of the majority of voters they serve. Today we can see anecdotal evidence of both findings. Robert Byrd gets way more spending directed at West Virginia than is to be proportionately expected. Senators Kennedy, Helms, Thurmond, and Hollings might be examples of long serving legislators at political extremes relative to voters. And while the study did not take it this direction, one might sight choices like the choice voters made in South Dakota in 2002 in order to hopefully keep Senator Daschle in power in spite of being a Republican state.
The problems I see in the paper are as follows. It ignores the political reality of voter turnout. It does not address the question of whether or not term-limited legislatures have actually produced a result of less spending. It ignores the effect of one party states. And the argument is that the primary goal is to produce electoral egalitarianism, yet I wonder if this is really as democratic as argued.
The reality is that the electorate does not necessarily reflect the results of polls. If I ask all people if they favor X without asking the same people if they are voters I might distort the outcome. Furthermore, if I ask only the registered voters the same question without qualifying the likelihood that they actually WILL vote I once again can be in error. But, even if we assume that good methodologies were used in this respect, is it really inconsistent of a voter to want to get rid of the bums yet vote for their own legislator? This behavior can actually be consistent with the concept of acting in my own self-interest. Removing my ability to act in this way limits my freedom. Even ignoring this the political reality is that many voters are not aware of the positions of a politician. In fact, they vote based on the encouragement of political organizations that they trust. The ability of a politician to manipulate these organizations is most significant in legislative races where the district is not covered by natural media markets.
If term limits will produce less pork barrel spending then why not show actual evidence of this? In 1998 there may not have been enough data. But, today there should be evidence. I suspect that the data would not prove the hypothesis presented in the paper. Why? I think two seemingly unrelated points in the paper give us the answer. In one place the author argues that term limits will bring fresh faces into politics because more seats will be openly contested. This seems like a populist idea that I can favor. Yet, in another place in the paper the author responds to the complaint about losing experienced politicians to term limits by pointing out that experienced politicians simply exchange seats in different bodies when term limits take effect. Is there a contradiction here? Yes. Each body has fresh faces, but in terms of the overall political map the faces are all the same, only the offices have changed. This implies to me that there would be no difference in the pork barrel effect since party power and lobbyist power is a continuing effect regardless of particular office. It may be a little more complicated but I still can influence spending by calling in favors that extend over multiple offices served, thereby capitalizing on my experience. In effect the career politician is still a career politician. If this were not true there would be a strong disincentive for politicians to make office switches in spite of no term limits.
What about one party states or districts? This distorts the analysis in a way that the author failed to address. Something like 20-30% of politicians on either side of the aisle may be a believer in ideological principles. The other 40-60% of politicians are in politics because they love the stuff (my numbers are not empirical, but there is likely some true proportion like this). No matter what the 40-60% of politicians that are true believers will join the party most likely to reflect their views and will only be elected if they are either really charismatic or happen to live in a district that disproportionately has the same political views. The other politicians make a choice at some point in life. They choose a party based on the likelihood of election. In a two party state this means that they come down about half and half and you get interesting politicians who sometimes have a mixed bag of political views. These are prime targets for party jumping. In a one party state these politicians join the party in power in mass. This causes political distortions. The biggest distortion is that the party in power has greater influence on controlling the competitiveness of elections. The party can keep back strong primary challengers by awarding alternative positions of power from which to gain name recognition for future challenges. Meanwhile there is no hope for the opponent from the opposition party since there is little organization and voter registration follows the same pattern as the registration of politicians. Much analysis of Congressional elections shows that the reason incumbents do so well in reelection is because the party disproportionately controls that district and is able to control the internal competition. Very few districts have equal party registration and therefore are unlikely to offer a high level of competition. Because of this long serving incumbents are more than likely from a district that is non-competitive. The paper avoided looking for data on this. Short serving incumbents, the ones with the competitive elections, are more than likely from districts that are drawn to be competitive. The point being that a 98% reelection rate for House members is somewhat misleading. If anything it is not a case for term limits, since the party distribution would be the same and therefore ensure the same favors taking place, but a case for changing the way that we draw Congressional districts (I offer the contrast of Senate party control with that of House party control as evidence).
Which brings me to what is the real purpose of term limits. I will be honest. I was in favor in 1994 for one reason: I wanted to get rid of Democratic control of Congress by any means available. And more recently, until I read this paper, I was opposed since I like having Republicans in control (at least more than Democrats). No other reason. Nothing idealistic about that. But now I have a reason. The case in the paper is that it is needed to level the playing field for the voter. If we all have term-limited legislators then we will all have the same access to things like pork barrel and influence since there will not be experience disparities. But if that is the case why not adopt the model of one term only? Why not one political office during any citizen’s lifetime? Why is three terms in the House appropriate? The real argument is egalitarian in nature. I reject the notion that I can’t choose to accept a legislator that is not in 100% agreement with me and not be making a good decision. At the end of the day even blacks voted for Strom Thurmond. Why? Because they concluded that the issue of race was a big enough issue that Strom would never have enough power to independently influence, but he could have enough power to bring back the pork to South Carolina. Voters do this all the time. Why take away the freedom to make this choice? Why take away the advantage that this can offer to my district? When the paper was written in 1998 California had yet to complete the transition to term limits. Does anyone want to use their fiscal crisis today as an argument that term limits worked in either the legislature or the governorship? I personally think that term limits were irrelevant in this crisis, but what is relevant is that spending patterns did not trend downward with term limits, and I would guess pork barrel spending was no lower than without term limits. Furthermore, I would guess that there are still disparities, but that the disparities are more consistent with party distribution than with individual districts.
The case for term limits is a good one when you are left out of power. In power it is harder to buy. Is this hypocritical? Yes. I admit it. But, on principle a true conservative or libertarian should ask the question of why the founders left out a term limiting provision. They surely could see that long serving Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers in England had as bad an effect as the King. Surely the problem we see today is not a new problem for a Republic. I think that they believed that the separation of powers would solve this problem well enough. Or maybe they felt it was a necessary evil. Whatever the case may be the arguments in this paper are not compelling enough of a reason to undo what the founders put in place.
About a month ago I read a piece by David Frum where he mentioned how he had come to be in favor of Congressional term limits. He credited a policy paper from the Cato Institution for his conversion. I took the invitation and read the paper--a very LONG paper. I agree that the paper is enlightening, but not to the same conclusion that it lead David Frum. The paper argues FOR term limits in order to increase Democracy, however I think the arguments used are weak.
A little background. Term limits, put simply, limit the number of terms an elected official can serve in the same office. My own journey on the issue of term limits really began when I realized that Ronald Reagan was term limited and Republicans would have to choose from a less than stellar field of candidates for replacement. It seemed the bitter fruits of a constitutional amendment after FDR's four terms. Politicians had reacted to FDR's virtual control on all power with a new rule to make it never happen again. While I am not sure of the historical arguments made at the time it would have been helpful for the policy paper to go back and contrast the history of that movement.
Admittedly, the policy paper only focuses on legislators by making the simple point that there is something inherently different about the executive and the legislature. I first started thinking specifically about Congressional term limits when Newt Gingrich included it in the Contract With America. As a Conservative Republican I was all for it. In my opinion it was a subtle rhetorical tool within the Contract. The message implied: 'throw the bums out!' And as a bonus, if we lost the 1994 Congressional Elections the message would be clear that had the rules of term limits been in place we would have won. This would further embolden party activists to stay involved. I was for it. I was tired of Democratic control of Congress. There seemed no way to defeat them in an election so I wanted a way to force the power brokers from power. But then we won the election.
In the years since many Congressional Republicans have retired because of a campaign promise they made to term limit themselves regardless. The irony to me has been that these have been the best, brightest, and most conservative members. Conservative in the sense that they understood that the power of the Federal Government and it's officials needed to be controlled. They understood that their word meant something. Yet, it was like unilateral disarmament. No career politicians retired out of shame to match the standard. And these great leaders have mostly disappeared into think tanks or Corporate America. Enforced term limits would have, of course, leveled the playing field and removed the career politicians but I stand by this: do we want to discard the good ones in order to rid ourselves of the bad ones? I for one do not.
The problem is clearly identified in the paper: entrenched legislators appear to wield a disproportionate influence on the outcome of legislative action. But, after reading the paper I am no longer convinced that term limits are the solution.
You see there is the possibility that the facts as presented are misleading. Sure there is no problem with the emotion that we should 'throw the bums out', but I am not convinced that the empirical data as presented proved any adverse effect to the voter electing the legislator.
The main data could be summarized as follows. Legislators seem to get more money appropriated as their length of service in legislative bodies increases. Further this increase is not just straight line—it appears to be exponential. On top of this there is evidence that long serving legislators fail to have strong opponents at election time in spite of not necessarily representing the true political position of the majority of voters they serve. Today we can see anecdotal evidence of both findings. Robert Byrd gets way more spending directed at West Virginia than is to be proportionately expected. Senators Kennedy, Helms, Thurmond, and Hollings might be examples of long serving legislators at political extremes relative to voters. And while the study did not take it this direction, one might sight choices like the choice voters made in South Dakota in 2002 in order to hopefully keep Senator Daschle in power in spite of being a Republican state.
The problems I see in the paper are as follows. It ignores the political reality of voter turnout. It does not address the question of whether or not term-limited legislatures have actually produced a result of less spending. It ignores the effect of one party states. And the argument is that the primary goal is to produce electoral egalitarianism, yet I wonder if this is really as democratic as argued.
The reality is that the electorate does not necessarily reflect the results of polls. If I ask all people if they favor X without asking the same people if they are voters I might distort the outcome. Furthermore, if I ask only the registered voters the same question without qualifying the likelihood that they actually WILL vote I once again can be in error. But, even if we assume that good methodologies were used in this respect, is it really inconsistent of a voter to want to get rid of the bums yet vote for their own legislator? This behavior can actually be consistent with the concept of acting in my own self-interest. Removing my ability to act in this way limits my freedom. Even ignoring this the political reality is that many voters are not aware of the positions of a politician. In fact, they vote based on the encouragement of political organizations that they trust. The ability of a politician to manipulate these organizations is most significant in legislative races where the district is not covered by natural media markets.
If term limits will produce less pork barrel spending then why not show actual evidence of this? In 1998 there may not have been enough data. But, today there should be evidence. I suspect that the data would not prove the hypothesis presented in the paper. Why? I think two seemingly unrelated points in the paper give us the answer. In one place the author argues that term limits will bring fresh faces into politics because more seats will be openly contested. This seems like a populist idea that I can favor. Yet, in another place in the paper the author responds to the complaint about losing experienced politicians to term limits by pointing out that experienced politicians simply exchange seats in different bodies when term limits take effect. Is there a contradiction here? Yes. Each body has fresh faces, but in terms of the overall political map the faces are all the same, only the offices have changed. This implies to me that there would be no difference in the pork barrel effect since party power and lobbyist power is a continuing effect regardless of particular office. It may be a little more complicated but I still can influence spending by calling in favors that extend over multiple offices served, thereby capitalizing on my experience. In effect the career politician is still a career politician. If this were not true there would be a strong disincentive for politicians to make office switches in spite of no term limits.
What about one party states or districts? This distorts the analysis in a way that the author failed to address. Something like 20-30% of politicians on either side of the aisle may be a believer in ideological principles. The other 40-60% of politicians are in politics because they love the stuff (my numbers are not empirical, but there is likely some true proportion like this). No matter what the 40-60% of politicians that are true believers will join the party most likely to reflect their views and will only be elected if they are either really charismatic or happen to live in a district that disproportionately has the same political views. The other politicians make a choice at some point in life. They choose a party based on the likelihood of election. In a two party state this means that they come down about half and half and you get interesting politicians who sometimes have a mixed bag of political views. These are prime targets for party jumping. In a one party state these politicians join the party in power in mass. This causes political distortions. The biggest distortion is that the party in power has greater influence on controlling the competitiveness of elections. The party can keep back strong primary challengers by awarding alternative positions of power from which to gain name recognition for future challenges. Meanwhile there is no hope for the opponent from the opposition party since there is little organization and voter registration follows the same pattern as the registration of politicians. Much analysis of Congressional elections shows that the reason incumbents do so well in reelection is because the party disproportionately controls that district and is able to control the internal competition. Very few districts have equal party registration and therefore are unlikely to offer a high level of competition. Because of this long serving incumbents are more than likely from a district that is non-competitive. The paper avoided looking for data on this. Short serving incumbents, the ones with the competitive elections, are more than likely from districts that are drawn to be competitive. The point being that a 98% reelection rate for House members is somewhat misleading. If anything it is not a case for term limits, since the party distribution would be the same and therefore ensure the same favors taking place, but a case for changing the way that we draw Congressional districts (I offer the contrast of Senate party control with that of House party control as evidence).
Which brings me to what is the real purpose of term limits. I will be honest. I was in favor in 1994 for one reason: I wanted to get rid of Democratic control of Congress by any means available. And more recently, until I read this paper, I was opposed since I like having Republicans in control (at least more than Democrats). No other reason. Nothing idealistic about that. But now I have a reason. The case in the paper is that it is needed to level the playing field for the voter. If we all have term-limited legislators then we will all have the same access to things like pork barrel and influence since there will not be experience disparities. But if that is the case why not adopt the model of one term only? Why not one political office during any citizen’s lifetime? Why is three terms in the House appropriate? The real argument is egalitarian in nature. I reject the notion that I can’t choose to accept a legislator that is not in 100% agreement with me and not be making a good decision. At the end of the day even blacks voted for Strom Thurmond. Why? Because they concluded that the issue of race was a big enough issue that Strom would never have enough power to independently influence, but he could have enough power to bring back the pork to South Carolina. Voters do this all the time. Why take away the freedom to make this choice? Why take away the advantage that this can offer to my district? When the paper was written in 1998 California had yet to complete the transition to term limits. Does anyone want to use their fiscal crisis today as an argument that term limits worked in either the legislature or the governorship? I personally think that term limits were irrelevant in this crisis, but what is relevant is that spending patterns did not trend downward with term limits, and I would guess pork barrel spending was no lower than without term limits. Furthermore, I would guess that there are still disparities, but that the disparities are more consistent with party distribution than with individual districts.
The case for term limits is a good one when you are left out of power. In power it is harder to buy. Is this hypocritical? Yes. I admit it. But, on principle a true conservative or libertarian should ask the question of why the founders left out a term limiting provision. They surely could see that long serving Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers in England had as bad an effect as the King. Surely the problem we see today is not a new problem for a Republic. I think that they believed that the separation of powers would solve this problem well enough. Or maybe they felt it was a necessary evil. Whatever the case may be the arguments in this paper are not compelling enough of a reason to undo what the founders put in place.
Jul 8, 2003
Democracy
There is often a quip made about how democracy is like sausage -- if you saw how it was made you wouldn't eat it. I think this gets thrown around far too often without anyone really pondering the metaphor. Would I really not eat sausage? Okay, they grind up meat, fat, ligaments, cartilage, and just about anything that is left over after they make all the expensive cuts of beef, pork, turkey, etc. They then take that meat and stuff it in a cleaned out intestine after adding whatever seasoning and coloring is necessary to make it have it's final appearance and taste. Now it is demystified, do you really not want to eat it? I still eat it. The point is that I don't mind looking under the hood (oops, I'm mixing metaphors). I realize that there is a process of give and take that produces final results. In fact, understanding the messy process that politics is, makes me more patient with some of the dumb compromises that are produced. Sure, like some kinds of sausage, I do not like some of the outcomes, but that doesn't make me sick about the process.
Let's take for example the current legislation on Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. At the end of the day this can only pass if there is a compromise with some Democrats. The thing is a mess. I don't like it. But, I don't like it because I long ago decided that it didn't matter what the flavor of the sausage was, I would not like Medicare reform. Too many Conservatives are bemoaning the process when in reality it is the flavor of sausage that is bad.
Why? Because it is a mistake.
The government should never have been in the business of ensuring medical coverage to anyone. Sure, we don't want old SICK people wandering the streets. But, medical coverage was once a pay as you get sick proposition, then someone came up with the idea of insurance against the bad things, and somewhere along the way it was discovered that it was not a good financial proposition for businesses to sell insurance to old people. After all, they tend to get sick and suffer from bad things like cancer and heart problems at relatively high rates. People felt bad for the old folks and decided that we should care for them. While not a bad motive, it was a bad idea. A young person like myself wonders: 'how did all the old people get along before Medicare?' It appears that they simply passed away, skipping the expensive procedures, or relied on family members to care for them.
Does the government have to solve everything? That is the real problem. At least Liberals are honest--they want the government to solve everything and they campaign on this. Granted many of them lose the vision and try to act like they care about deficits or personal liberties or something else. But at the end of the day they want to solve problems with government solutions. They are convinced that they can fix anything with a law and some money.
I attended a high school that was famous for having some really rough and tough students. Our football team would literally kick ass every year, as did our wrestling team. Sports that did not depend on brute force, like baseball and men's volleyball, were somewhat less successful. Granted we were also famous for our high school marching band, but we had to do something with all the nerds. Anyway, after one particular football game, where we beat the snot out of the opponent, some dumb students decided to stone the opposing teams bus. They also stoned the other teams band bus. Some kids got hurt. Existing rules were put into place to punish our school. Most notably, we were banned from playing night games. It all seemed appropriate and the principle suspended the offenders (who by the way were mad because they had been kicked out of the game by school officials for drunkenness, etc.). The State Representative from the district where the stoned high school was from proposed legislation to require that the state guarantee the safety of all students. Students from the victimized high school appeared to testify for the bill. I was a legislative intern and organized some of our own students to testify against this measure (yes, all the band nerds). I give the entire back-story to make two points. The State Representative was desperate to look like she was doing "something" to protect the people of her district. There was a problem, and she was going to solve it. But the problem was already dealt with. There was no need to do anything. Fortunately, the legislation died.
Like Bob the Builder, if there is a problem Liberals can fix it. This was the crux of the liberal democratic coalition that FDR used to build his tent. LBJ successfully added new groups under the tent with the only requirement for entry being suffering at the hands of tradition. Medicare is the offspring of the orgy in that tent. I may be mixing all kinds of metaphors again, but the point is simply that Medicare was meant to fix things.
Politicians like to show voters that they are doing something. This is why Liberals and being lifelong politicians are such a natural match. The problem is for Republicans. Conservatives don't think that government should try to fix every problem. We realize that there will be some suffering along the way, but we hesitant to disrupt existing systems. We elect Republicans, but we are not enough in numbers that the Republican politician can simply sit in Congress and vote no on every measure and hope to be reelected. The swing moderate voters out there would interpret that as Republicans doing nothing.
This was the electoral secret to Newt Gingrinch's Contract with America. It was a plan for doing SOMETHING. For 30 years voters went to the polls and were faced with a choice. Liberal Tom says he will do something, Conservative Bob says there is nothing to do. But I would like to see the freeway expanded and that takes money... hmmmmm... I guess I will vote for the Liberal and hope that he doesn't get out of control. It goes a lot deeper than this, but let's go on. Newt came along and proposed an agenda for doing SOMETHING. Voters now had a reason to vote for Republicans and the landscape changed.
Let's look at another example. Why are Republicans so sure that Ross Perot voters would have mostly voted Republican? Because Ross Perot was not pushing a Liberal agenda, but an agenda period. He wanted to do something, but he seemed grounded in much of the same vision that the Contract with America espoused.
Consequently, the smart Republicans find a way to appear active in doing SOMETHING. Today Bush is ready to sign anything on Medicare so that come election time he can prove that he has done SOMETHING. Tax cuts are something as well. His tax cuts have never been about sound theory, just about doing something. Organizing the Department of Homeland Security? Doing something.
The problem is that there are consequences to doing something. There are costs. Which brings me back to the real point. Medicare was a bad idea to begin with. To make changes to the system here or there is just like debating whether to build a skyscraper with 50 stories or 60 stories. If the skyscraper is a bad idea it doesn't matter how many stories it has.
Medicare is bad idea because it distorts the economy. It distorts the investment in medical research. A simple example of this distortion. There would be little discussion about Do Not Resuscitate orders and assisted suicide if there was no Medicare. Simply put, many elderly people would conclude that their time has come and they would simply not go to the hospital. Is this harsh? Absolutely. But by making the point to spend as much as possible to save the oldest people we then created a new moral dilemma about when to stop. Why not remove the distortion and allow the individual to conclude that it is not worth the financial burden to family? As it is there is no reason for an elderly person to worry about a burden on people they love since the costs are diffused to the point that the family considers the Medicare a right.
And what does this have to do with the sausage? I can't expect President Bush to resist the temptation to improve the sausage. But at the end of the day I don't like the sausage--no matter the flavor enhancement.
There is often a quip made about how democracy is like sausage -- if you saw how it was made you wouldn't eat it. I think this gets thrown around far too often without anyone really pondering the metaphor. Would I really not eat sausage? Okay, they grind up meat, fat, ligaments, cartilage, and just about anything that is left over after they make all the expensive cuts of beef, pork, turkey, etc. They then take that meat and stuff it in a cleaned out intestine after adding whatever seasoning and coloring is necessary to make it have it's final appearance and taste. Now it is demystified, do you really not want to eat it? I still eat it. The point is that I don't mind looking under the hood (oops, I'm mixing metaphors). I realize that there is a process of give and take that produces final results. In fact, understanding the messy process that politics is, makes me more patient with some of the dumb compromises that are produced. Sure, like some kinds of sausage, I do not like some of the outcomes, but that doesn't make me sick about the process.
Let's take for example the current legislation on Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. At the end of the day this can only pass if there is a compromise with some Democrats. The thing is a mess. I don't like it. But, I don't like it because I long ago decided that it didn't matter what the flavor of the sausage was, I would not like Medicare reform. Too many Conservatives are bemoaning the process when in reality it is the flavor of sausage that is bad.
Why? Because it is a mistake.
The government should never have been in the business of ensuring medical coverage to anyone. Sure, we don't want old SICK people wandering the streets. But, medical coverage was once a pay as you get sick proposition, then someone came up with the idea of insurance against the bad things, and somewhere along the way it was discovered that it was not a good financial proposition for businesses to sell insurance to old people. After all, they tend to get sick and suffer from bad things like cancer and heart problems at relatively high rates. People felt bad for the old folks and decided that we should care for them. While not a bad motive, it was a bad idea. A young person like myself wonders: 'how did all the old people get along before Medicare?' It appears that they simply passed away, skipping the expensive procedures, or relied on family members to care for them.
Does the government have to solve everything? That is the real problem. At least Liberals are honest--they want the government to solve everything and they campaign on this. Granted many of them lose the vision and try to act like they care about deficits or personal liberties or something else. But at the end of the day they want to solve problems with government solutions. They are convinced that they can fix anything with a law and some money.
I attended a high school that was famous for having some really rough and tough students. Our football team would literally kick ass every year, as did our wrestling team. Sports that did not depend on brute force, like baseball and men's volleyball, were somewhat less successful. Granted we were also famous for our high school marching band, but we had to do something with all the nerds. Anyway, after one particular football game, where we beat the snot out of the opponent, some dumb students decided to stone the opposing teams bus. They also stoned the other teams band bus. Some kids got hurt. Existing rules were put into place to punish our school. Most notably, we were banned from playing night games. It all seemed appropriate and the principle suspended the offenders (who by the way were mad because they had been kicked out of the game by school officials for drunkenness, etc.). The State Representative from the district where the stoned high school was from proposed legislation to require that the state guarantee the safety of all students. Students from the victimized high school appeared to testify for the bill. I was a legislative intern and organized some of our own students to testify against this measure (yes, all the band nerds). I give the entire back-story to make two points. The State Representative was desperate to look like she was doing "something" to protect the people of her district. There was a problem, and she was going to solve it. But the problem was already dealt with. There was no need to do anything. Fortunately, the legislation died.
Like Bob the Builder, if there is a problem Liberals can fix it. This was the crux of the liberal democratic coalition that FDR used to build his tent. LBJ successfully added new groups under the tent with the only requirement for entry being suffering at the hands of tradition. Medicare is the offspring of the orgy in that tent. I may be mixing all kinds of metaphors again, but the point is simply that Medicare was meant to fix things.
Politicians like to show voters that they are doing something. This is why Liberals and being lifelong politicians are such a natural match. The problem is for Republicans. Conservatives don't think that government should try to fix every problem. We realize that there will be some suffering along the way, but we hesitant to disrupt existing systems. We elect Republicans, but we are not enough in numbers that the Republican politician can simply sit in Congress and vote no on every measure and hope to be reelected. The swing moderate voters out there would interpret that as Republicans doing nothing.
This was the electoral secret to Newt Gingrinch's Contract with America. It was a plan for doing SOMETHING. For 30 years voters went to the polls and were faced with a choice. Liberal Tom says he will do something, Conservative Bob says there is nothing to do. But I would like to see the freeway expanded and that takes money... hmmmmm... I guess I will vote for the Liberal and hope that he doesn't get out of control. It goes a lot deeper than this, but let's go on. Newt came along and proposed an agenda for doing SOMETHING. Voters now had a reason to vote for Republicans and the landscape changed.
Let's look at another example. Why are Republicans so sure that Ross Perot voters would have mostly voted Republican? Because Ross Perot was not pushing a Liberal agenda, but an agenda period. He wanted to do something, but he seemed grounded in much of the same vision that the Contract with America espoused.
Consequently, the smart Republicans find a way to appear active in doing SOMETHING. Today Bush is ready to sign anything on Medicare so that come election time he can prove that he has done SOMETHING. Tax cuts are something as well. His tax cuts have never been about sound theory, just about doing something. Organizing the Department of Homeland Security? Doing something.
The problem is that there are consequences to doing something. There are costs. Which brings me back to the real point. Medicare was a bad idea to begin with. To make changes to the system here or there is just like debating whether to build a skyscraper with 50 stories or 60 stories. If the skyscraper is a bad idea it doesn't matter how many stories it has.
Medicare is bad idea because it distorts the economy. It distorts the investment in medical research. A simple example of this distortion. There would be little discussion about Do Not Resuscitate orders and assisted suicide if there was no Medicare. Simply put, many elderly people would conclude that their time has come and they would simply not go to the hospital. Is this harsh? Absolutely. But by making the point to spend as much as possible to save the oldest people we then created a new moral dilemma about when to stop. Why not remove the distortion and allow the individual to conclude that it is not worth the financial burden to family? As it is there is no reason for an elderly person to worry about a burden on people they love since the costs are diffused to the point that the family considers the Medicare a right.
And what does this have to do with the sausage? I can't expect President Bush to resist the temptation to improve the sausage. But at the end of the day I don't like the sausage--no matter the flavor enhancement.
Jul 3, 2003
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!
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!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)