Sunday, October 10, 2010
A Proposed Voting Test
I brought up the topic of creating a voting test in earlier blog posts. I've created such a quiz, which you can take here. While I would love to give a longer test, any "realistic" test would have to be short enough to not hold up voting at the polls. Another problem is that the longer the test is, the more likely a controversial question would pop up. I do not think anyone could realistically challenge any of the questions there as politically biased toward any particular ideology.
Monday, October 4, 2010
What Is The Tea Party?
What is the Tea Party? Future historians, current political scientists, and interested average citizens all must ask this question. Given its nebulous nature yet powerful influence over this important election cycle, it is worth spending some time understanding this phenomena: its origin, its composition, goals, impact, and future roll in our political society.
Origins
The simple fact of the matter is that while Republicans proclaimed to love small government, it expanded at an enormous rate during the Bush Administration. While the Democrats pushed for a great deal of spending during this time, Republicans had the opportunity to block additional spending but failed to do so; they often made matters worse, in particular with exploding pork barrel projects. In 2006 and in particular during 2008, conservative and independent voters finally had enough of the hypocrisy of Republican members of government. An unfortunate side effect of the two party system and the imprecision of the electoral mechanism is that the party pushing for even greater government spending came to power, believing they had a mandate to radically transform America into an increasingly socialistic state.
In 2009, a perfect storm hit America's political scene. The economy was in flames, largely due to a housing market bubble artificially expanded by government intervention requiring or facilitating mortgages being issued to low (or sometimes no) income buyers. Our government has proven itself completely incapable of dealing with this problem; in fact, its own fiscal situation has dramatically deteriorated over the last couple of years. While the economy burned, fiscal conservatives, fed up with both parties but particularly egged on by the new administration's openly statist attitude, became even more agitated without a party channel to vent through. The government's feeble attempts to improve the economy (largely wrecked by government policies) with yet more corrupt government spending has proven so ridiculously absurd that a very large segment of Americans have written off the government as an effective tool for positive change.
In February, following a "stimulus" of unimaginable cost with almost no public scrutiny being passed along party lines, Rick Santelli delivered a now famous rant on CNBC. It should be watched. In it, he calls for a "tea party" to be held in Chicago, referring back to the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773, where colonists protested unfair tax laws by seizing British cargo ships and dumping the tea into Boston Harbor. I do not know if Santelli was aware of the tea party held in Binghamton, NY that January to protest a tax on soda; being an upstate New Yorker, I would certainly feel some pride in thinking this movement was born in my backyard.
After Santelli's rant, tea parties began springing up across the nation. By Tax Day (April 15th), a massive, nation wide protest was conducted, organized via the Internet largely by local people fed up with the current system. Rallies continued to be held throughout the summer, culminating in a very large rally in Washington, D.C. on September 12th. Since then, tea parties have been held often throughout the nation, sometimes organized by local leaders and sometimes put together by national leaders who have the respect of the tea partiers.
Goals
The Tea Party has a single, unifying goal: the government has become too large, too powerful, and abusive. While social conservatives certainly join the Tea Party, the Tea Party itself is not a social movement outside of the economic role of government. Tea Partiers tend to know the Constitution is our agreement as to what the government may and may not do and that many actions our government has taken recently overstep those limitations. Austrian economists like F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises tend to be popular reading, in particular Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
Their argument is simple and extremely difficult to refute: politicians are not responsible with taxpayer dollars, in particular when the government becomes so bloated that it becomes impossible to hold those politicians accountable for money that disappears into the bureaucratic abyss. Government does not know how to improve our lives better than we do ourselves; politicians also have motives outside of our conception of good, whereas we do not. We have never consented to be ruled like children, but rather demand we be governed like citizens.
Government failures will always be defended by a cry for more money; if only more money were spent, the government could achieve great things! The Tea Party rejects this argument. Governments should not be trying to redistribute wealth (a god awful opportunity for corruption) or trying to create a better society (since when do politicians understand all of society, what a better one would look like, have a clear plan to achieve it, and the virtue to see it through?).
Simply put, Tea Partiers wish to live their lives unmolested by the government.
Impact
The Tea Party confuses many politicos because it is not a traditional mechanism for political participation. Our rules and political norms largely rule out the possibility of a successful third party. Any third party would largely take away votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans, handing the party least impacted a victory over what would essentially be a divided party. Bull Moose, the Green Party, Ross Perot; each and every time, the major third party always helps the party farthest from them on the political spectrum win the election.
With very few exceptions, the Tea Party is not a political party but rather a political movement. It has provided Independents who demand fiscal conservatism an outlet to vent their rage outside of the Republican Party, a party that has spent the last decade destroying its own image as fiscally responsible. Tea Partiers owe no dues and largely have no leaders. It is a decentralized rejection of the statist status quo.
Rather than divide the Republican Party, the Tea Party has conducted an insurgency campaign within the mechanism of the party. Republicans with reputations for fiscal irresponsibility have faced strong primary challenges; many established Republicans have since lost their positions not to Democrats but to largely unknown individuals.
Perhaps most importantly, the Tea Party has brought in millions of individuals who have never really taken an active roll in politics and radically changed the social mores of our country. This is one of the few times in our nation's history that a liberal government has faced massive, vocal opposition to their domestic policies. The silent majority is silent no longer. Statist philosophy is no longer allowed to go unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Before, the few people who would speak up against the state were largely dismissed as extremists; now, statists have to prove their goals are not only possible but desirable to an audience no longer inclined to blindly accept the precept that "the state can fix all."
Future Roll
The future of the Tea Party largely depends on how well Washington implements reforms toward a smaller, Constitutionally bound government. This is unlikely, to put it mildly. It is likely that future government projects will have to overcome strong political resistance from Tea Party politicians (generally in the Republican Party) and political revulsion in popular opinion. The stigma of TARP, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, and ObamaCare will not be forgotten quickly, and politicians who assume new spending can be authorized without a serious explanation for the necessity of that spending will pay for it at the polls.
With the probable exception of ObamaCare, however, most current government spending will not be rolled back. Too many have paid too much into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to get nothing in return, and even Tea Partiers will not wish to end up losing everything in these Ponzi schemes. These systems will continue towards bankruptcy in the near future, eventually screwing over everyone still alive at that point in time.
The protests and rallies may die down as new spending decreases, but the fiscal instability of our system will continue to plague our nation for many decades to come. Any government, regardless of which party controls it, will reignite this flame if they propose yet more government programs. The notion that government is the problem, not the solution, has always been a strong aspect of the American political ethos. We have entered an era where this ethos has found a voice, a resounding, booming voice that has caused every politician that desires reelection more than progressive policies to fear for their political life. It is appropriate that the Tea Party has adopted the Gadsden flag as its own: politicians fear treading on the liberty of the people like they have not in many generations. The silent majority has found its voice and it will not lose it again in the near future.
Origins
The simple fact of the matter is that while Republicans proclaimed to love small government, it expanded at an enormous rate during the Bush Administration. While the Democrats pushed for a great deal of spending during this time, Republicans had the opportunity to block additional spending but failed to do so; they often made matters worse, in particular with exploding pork barrel projects. In 2006 and in particular during 2008, conservative and independent voters finally had enough of the hypocrisy of Republican members of government. An unfortunate side effect of the two party system and the imprecision of the electoral mechanism is that the party pushing for even greater government spending came to power, believing they had a mandate to radically transform America into an increasingly socialistic state.
In 2009, a perfect storm hit America's political scene. The economy was in flames, largely due to a housing market bubble artificially expanded by government intervention requiring or facilitating mortgages being issued to low (or sometimes no) income buyers. Our government has proven itself completely incapable of dealing with this problem; in fact, its own fiscal situation has dramatically deteriorated over the last couple of years. While the economy burned, fiscal conservatives, fed up with both parties but particularly egged on by the new administration's openly statist attitude, became even more agitated without a party channel to vent through. The government's feeble attempts to improve the economy (largely wrecked by government policies) with yet more corrupt government spending has proven so ridiculously absurd that a very large segment of Americans have written off the government as an effective tool for positive change.
In February, following a "stimulus" of unimaginable cost with almost no public scrutiny being passed along party lines, Rick Santelli delivered a now famous rant on CNBC. It should be watched. In it, he calls for a "tea party" to be held in Chicago, referring back to the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773, where colonists protested unfair tax laws by seizing British cargo ships and dumping the tea into Boston Harbor. I do not know if Santelli was aware of the tea party held in Binghamton, NY that January to protest a tax on soda; being an upstate New Yorker, I would certainly feel some pride in thinking this movement was born in my backyard.
After Santelli's rant, tea parties began springing up across the nation. By Tax Day (April 15th), a massive, nation wide protest was conducted, organized via the Internet largely by local people fed up with the current system. Rallies continued to be held throughout the summer, culminating in a very large rally in Washington, D.C. on September 12th. Since then, tea parties have been held often throughout the nation, sometimes organized by local leaders and sometimes put together by national leaders who have the respect of the tea partiers.
Goals
The Tea Party has a single, unifying goal: the government has become too large, too powerful, and abusive. While social conservatives certainly join the Tea Party, the Tea Party itself is not a social movement outside of the economic role of government. Tea Partiers tend to know the Constitution is our agreement as to what the government may and may not do and that many actions our government has taken recently overstep those limitations. Austrian economists like F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises tend to be popular reading, in particular Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
Their argument is simple and extremely difficult to refute: politicians are not responsible with taxpayer dollars, in particular when the government becomes so bloated that it becomes impossible to hold those politicians accountable for money that disappears into the bureaucratic abyss. Government does not know how to improve our lives better than we do ourselves; politicians also have motives outside of our conception of good, whereas we do not. We have never consented to be ruled like children, but rather demand we be governed like citizens.
Government failures will always be defended by a cry for more money; if only more money were spent, the government could achieve great things! The Tea Party rejects this argument. Governments should not be trying to redistribute wealth (a god awful opportunity for corruption) or trying to create a better society (since when do politicians understand all of society, what a better one would look like, have a clear plan to achieve it, and the virtue to see it through?).
Simply put, Tea Partiers wish to live their lives unmolested by the government.
Impact
The Tea Party confuses many politicos because it is not a traditional mechanism for political participation. Our rules and political norms largely rule out the possibility of a successful third party. Any third party would largely take away votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans, handing the party least impacted a victory over what would essentially be a divided party. Bull Moose, the Green Party, Ross Perot; each and every time, the major third party always helps the party farthest from them on the political spectrum win the election.
With very few exceptions, the Tea Party is not a political party but rather a political movement. It has provided Independents who demand fiscal conservatism an outlet to vent their rage outside of the Republican Party, a party that has spent the last decade destroying its own image as fiscally responsible. Tea Partiers owe no dues and largely have no leaders. It is a decentralized rejection of the statist status quo.
Rather than divide the Republican Party, the Tea Party has conducted an insurgency campaign within the mechanism of the party. Republicans with reputations for fiscal irresponsibility have faced strong primary challenges; many established Republicans have since lost their positions not to Democrats but to largely unknown individuals.
Perhaps most importantly, the Tea Party has brought in millions of individuals who have never really taken an active roll in politics and radically changed the social mores of our country. This is one of the few times in our nation's history that a liberal government has faced massive, vocal opposition to their domestic policies. The silent majority is silent no longer. Statist philosophy is no longer allowed to go unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Before, the few people who would speak up against the state were largely dismissed as extremists; now, statists have to prove their goals are not only possible but desirable to an audience no longer inclined to blindly accept the precept that "the state can fix all."
Future Roll
The future of the Tea Party largely depends on how well Washington implements reforms toward a smaller, Constitutionally bound government. This is unlikely, to put it mildly. It is likely that future government projects will have to overcome strong political resistance from Tea Party politicians (generally in the Republican Party) and political revulsion in popular opinion. The stigma of TARP, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, and ObamaCare will not be forgotten quickly, and politicians who assume new spending can be authorized without a serious explanation for the necessity of that spending will pay for it at the polls.
With the probable exception of ObamaCare, however, most current government spending will not be rolled back. Too many have paid too much into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to get nothing in return, and even Tea Partiers will not wish to end up losing everything in these Ponzi schemes. These systems will continue towards bankruptcy in the near future, eventually screwing over everyone still alive at that point in time.
The protests and rallies may die down as new spending decreases, but the fiscal instability of our system will continue to plague our nation for many decades to come. Any government, regardless of which party controls it, will reignite this flame if they propose yet more government programs. The notion that government is the problem, not the solution, has always been a strong aspect of the American political ethos. We have entered an era where this ethos has found a voice, a resounding, booming voice that has caused every politician that desires reelection more than progressive policies to fear for their political life. It is appropriate that the Tea Party has adopted the Gadsden flag as its own: politicians fear treading on the liberty of the people like they have not in many generations. The silent majority has found its voice and it will not lose it again in the near future.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Re: Democracy in America?
A few years ago, HBO created a great series on Caesar's rise and the civil wars that followed called Rome. It was remarkably well done for a historical fiction, depicting the life of average Romans very well. In the episode Triumph, one of the main characters, Vorenus, is running for office as a magistrate of Rome and Caesar's slave Posca is helping Vorenus to learn the ropes of politics. Slow to comprehend complex laws, Vorenus suggests such learning can wait after the election since it was distinctly possible he might lose. Posca lets Vorenus know the election is effectively rigged and Caesar's man Vorenus is not going to lose. Understandably, Vorenus is upset; this is a perversion of democracy, but Posca points out a chilling thought: the people are crying for bread and stability, not clean elections.
I bring this up because I am just finishing up covering Napoleon with my 10th graders. In an assignment, I had the students write a paragraph asking whether they would vote to give Napoleon absolute power in a plebiscite. While Napoleon was never that blunt about things, he did hold numerous plebiscites to legitimize his power grabs which eventually lead him to become an authoritarian ruler. Every single class voted in a similar manner as the French people did: in favor of a dictator, so long as they believe that dictator will bring peace, justice, and tranquility or glory. The final count was 30-13.
Most of the supporters mentioned an increase in equality of citizens, price control, and the need for a strong government to preserve the peace. Most of the dissenters opposed the notion of having an all powerful king, especially since France had just suffered a revolution to remove an absolute monarch.
These students will be voting in the next presidential election. While I would not extrapolate the attitudes of one small section of 10th graders from this one district to prove this rule, I think history does provide many, many examples of citizens voluntarily (and often enthusiastically) approving power grabs by individuals promising stability away from democratic bickering, price controls to threaten the upper classes, and increased equality. Rarely, if ever, have those power grabs turned out well for the people in the long run.
I bring this up because I am just finishing up covering Napoleon with my 10th graders. In an assignment, I had the students write a paragraph asking whether they would vote to give Napoleon absolute power in a plebiscite. While Napoleon was never that blunt about things, he did hold numerous plebiscites to legitimize his power grabs which eventually lead him to become an authoritarian ruler. Every single class voted in a similar manner as the French people did: in favor of a dictator, so long as they believe that dictator will bring peace, justice, and tranquility or glory. The final count was 30-13.
Most of the supporters mentioned an increase in equality of citizens, price control, and the need for a strong government to preserve the peace. Most of the dissenters opposed the notion of having an all powerful king, especially since France had just suffered a revolution to remove an absolute monarch.
These students will be voting in the next presidential election. While I would not extrapolate the attitudes of one small section of 10th graders from this one district to prove this rule, I think history does provide many, many examples of citizens voluntarily (and often enthusiastically) approving power grabs by individuals promising stability away from democratic bickering, price controls to threaten the upper classes, and increased equality. Rarely, if ever, have those power grabs turned out well for the people in the long run.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Current State of the Afghanistan Conflict
I am about to pick up The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost at the Owego library. This book was written by the Soviet General Staff to analyze their performance during the conflict. Given the situation we find ourselves it, it seems like an appropriate book to read. Before I do, I want to jot down a few thoughts I have about the state of the conflict.
We find ourselves at war with a terrorist band rather than a nation state. It has similarities to what the Romans faced trying to purge the Illyrian pirates but with far greater international and internal pressure to reduce unnecessary violence, even against the terrorists themselves. This enemy has already proven themselves capable of striking at us and striking hard; there is no reason to believe that, left unmolested, they could not perform even worse feats against us.
This war also has parallels to the Punic Wars. There, tribes and cities would routinely switch sides to whichever power appeared to be the strongest at the present moment in time. Tribes and factions throughout the Muslim world, not to mention individuals, are far more likely to join Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda has the appearance of winning the conflict. It is imperative that we never allow such an impression to be made.
Afghanistan is one of the worst places we could be fighting such a conflict. Iraq was far better. Guerrilla insurrections survive by not fighting pitched battles but rather operating with hit and run tactics, always preserving their fighting force from the militarily stronger opposition. This means the guerrillas need a place to operate from that either cannot be located or operated in by their stronger enemy. There are generally two places to hide: the terrain and the population.
In Iraq, the terrain is not particularly well suited to hide guerrilla bands. Large areas are fairly open; forests are few and mountains are primarily located to the north in Kurdish territory. The population was initially not hostile towards Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. Ironically, the setbacks we faced in 2006, when Al Qaeda was left in charge of large segments of the population, proved to be beneficial for the United States. Strict Islamic law was applied; Iraqis, who have a long history of living in a quasi-western civilization, were appalled. At the end of 2006, the United States declared their intention to see the conflict through to the end, launching "the surge" and increasing the number of troops on the ground by tens of thousands. Al Qaeda was never strong enough to take on the full power of the United States military and after alienating the local population found themselves having no place to hide. Since 2008, casualties in Iraq have plummeted despite America having less than one third of our troops remaining in country.
This was a great win for us. Al Qaeda had declared that Iraq would be their central front in their jihad against us, but in the end Al Qaeda was largely annihilated! We should be proclaiming those two facts throughout the Muslim world to show we are more than capable of beating this enemy. As I said, and as ancient and modern history show, the side that appears to be winning is the side that people join while the other suffers desertions.
Unfortunately, political considerations got in the way. Our current administration declared that the Iraq war was "stupid" and that the surge would increase rather than decrease violence there. Afghanistan was the good war, the area we needed to be fighting in. Perception is what determines whether a person or tribe will join Al Qaeda; our performance in Iraq would be a great piece of propaganda, especially concerning Al Qaeda's boast that they would win there, but this administration will not use it because it would undermine their earlier ardent opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
So instead we sent a surge of troops to Afghanistan, put General Petreaus in charge, and gave them a two year deadline to achieve the impossible. Afghanistan is mountainous and borders Pakistan, a country that isn't hostile to the Taliban/Al Qaeda message. The people of Afghanistan are different from the people of Iraq; they do not have a long history of living a semi-western lifestyle and sharia law is more acceptable there. Our enemies can hide in the terrain and the population with far greater ease than they could in Iraq.
Moreover, this administration is blatantly putting political goals ahead of the military situation. Our generals flat out told the President that a timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan is merely giving the enemy a countdown to victory, creating the impression among the locals that they cannot trust our commitment and driving them towards the enemy who will be there long after July 2011. If the Taliban remain then (and they will), communities will not want to explain why they helped the Americans to those brutal warlords. Best way of not having to say sorry is to not piss off the warlords in the first place.
Mr. Woodward's recent book quotes the President as creating the July 2011 deadline because "I [Obama] can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This has absolutely nothing to do with the military situation. More of our troops have died this year in Afghanistan than in any previous year; Obama's reelection should not be a reason American soldiers die.
I need to remind the readers that Obama had absolutely no military experience prior to coming into office; there is little evidence he has studied warfare, either. It almost appears that his decision to send a "surge" of troops and put Petreaus in charge comes from the fact that those combination of things worked in Iraq (despite Obama's vocal opposition at the time). As I've pointed out, the terrain and people are very different in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. From what I have read, it seems our President was shocked he could not get an exit strategy out of his generals. This was a common complaint against Bush by the Left. Wars are not fought with exit strategies; you pick your goal and then you beat and kill your opponent until they accept those terms or are no longer physically able to resist them.
We find ourselves at war with a terrorist band rather than a nation state. It has similarities to what the Romans faced trying to purge the Illyrian pirates but with far greater international and internal pressure to reduce unnecessary violence, even against the terrorists themselves. This enemy has already proven themselves capable of striking at us and striking hard; there is no reason to believe that, left unmolested, they could not perform even worse feats against us.
This war also has parallels to the Punic Wars. There, tribes and cities would routinely switch sides to whichever power appeared to be the strongest at the present moment in time. Tribes and factions throughout the Muslim world, not to mention individuals, are far more likely to join Al Qaeda if Al Qaeda has the appearance of winning the conflict. It is imperative that we never allow such an impression to be made.
Afghanistan is one of the worst places we could be fighting such a conflict. Iraq was far better. Guerrilla insurrections survive by not fighting pitched battles but rather operating with hit and run tactics, always preserving their fighting force from the militarily stronger opposition. This means the guerrillas need a place to operate from that either cannot be located or operated in by their stronger enemy. There are generally two places to hide: the terrain and the population.
In Iraq, the terrain is not particularly well suited to hide guerrilla bands. Large areas are fairly open; forests are few and mountains are primarily located to the north in Kurdish territory. The population was initially not hostile towards Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. Ironically, the setbacks we faced in 2006, when Al Qaeda was left in charge of large segments of the population, proved to be beneficial for the United States. Strict Islamic law was applied; Iraqis, who have a long history of living in a quasi-western civilization, were appalled. At the end of 2006, the United States declared their intention to see the conflict through to the end, launching "the surge" and increasing the number of troops on the ground by tens of thousands. Al Qaeda was never strong enough to take on the full power of the United States military and after alienating the local population found themselves having no place to hide. Since 2008, casualties in Iraq have plummeted despite America having less than one third of our troops remaining in country.
This was a great win for us. Al Qaeda had declared that Iraq would be their central front in their jihad against us, but in the end Al Qaeda was largely annihilated! We should be proclaiming those two facts throughout the Muslim world to show we are more than capable of beating this enemy. As I said, and as ancient and modern history show, the side that appears to be winning is the side that people join while the other suffers desertions.
Unfortunately, political considerations got in the way. Our current administration declared that the Iraq war was "stupid" and that the surge would increase rather than decrease violence there. Afghanistan was the good war, the area we needed to be fighting in. Perception is what determines whether a person or tribe will join Al Qaeda; our performance in Iraq would be a great piece of propaganda, especially concerning Al Qaeda's boast that they would win there, but this administration will not use it because it would undermine their earlier ardent opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
So instead we sent a surge of troops to Afghanistan, put General Petreaus in charge, and gave them a two year deadline to achieve the impossible. Afghanistan is mountainous and borders Pakistan, a country that isn't hostile to the Taliban/Al Qaeda message. The people of Afghanistan are different from the people of Iraq; they do not have a long history of living a semi-western lifestyle and sharia law is more acceptable there. Our enemies can hide in the terrain and the population with far greater ease than they could in Iraq.
Moreover, this administration is blatantly putting political goals ahead of the military situation. Our generals flat out told the President that a timetable for withdrawing from Afghanistan is merely giving the enemy a countdown to victory, creating the impression among the locals that they cannot trust our commitment and driving them towards the enemy who will be there long after July 2011. If the Taliban remain then (and they will), communities will not want to explain why they helped the Americans to those brutal warlords. Best way of not having to say sorry is to not piss off the warlords in the first place.
Mr. Woodward's recent book quotes the President as creating the July 2011 deadline because "I [Obama] can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This has absolutely nothing to do with the military situation. More of our troops have died this year in Afghanistan than in any previous year; Obama's reelection should not be a reason American soldiers die.
I need to remind the readers that Obama had absolutely no military experience prior to coming into office; there is little evidence he has studied warfare, either. It almost appears that his decision to send a "surge" of troops and put Petreaus in charge comes from the fact that those combination of things worked in Iraq (despite Obama's vocal opposition at the time). As I've pointed out, the terrain and people are very different in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq. From what I have read, it seems our President was shocked he could not get an exit strategy out of his generals. This was a common complaint against Bush by the Left. Wars are not fought with exit strategies; you pick your goal and then you beat and kill your opponent until they accept those terms or are no longer physically able to resist them.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Democracy in America?
I touched on this subject last year in a Facebook post, but it is a question that deserves serious consideration in a place where more in depth discussion can take place: should we allow everyone to vote? It is an inflammatory question, given the deep reverence Americans place on the right to vote, but I'm not asking this just to poke people in the eye. Democracy is the rule of government by the people; government itself involves the monopoly of the use of force. Government is extremely complex in operation and theory, but the electorate of this nation barely knows the basic facts, much less the theory behind what constitutes good governance or the empirical record of the history of governments.
Let me put it to you this way: would you let a group of 18 year old kids who have never worked on or even examined how vehicles work repair your car? Would you drive that car afterwords?
If you are like me, you are thinking of course not! That's a sure way of getting killed, along with whoever is in your car and whoever you happen to hit. Government is far more complicated than cars and the stakes are much higher: over a hundred million people died due to tyrannical governments in the last century. That doesn't include war. That is just governments butchering their own people.
My recent experiences in a history classroom have revealed just how little many students know about history or government. And they are two years away from voting. Many of the advanced political science students cannot tell how many female justices are on the Supreme Court (hint: if you can't, I'm heavily implying you are not qualified to take part in government). Doubts I once had about this study disappeared quickly. If anything, I think those numbers are skewed towards the brighter Americans, as those more likely to do poorly would refuse to take that test in the first place.
I'll grant that implementing restrictions on voting would be difficult. Politically, in fact, it would be impossible, as those who would lose that right would certainly use any chance to vote before implementation to protect that right.
But as a matter of principle, shouldn't we only encourage people to vote if they have made a concerted effort to understand good governance and current events? Rather than telling everyone to go vote, shouldn't we set a societal norm that those who do not put any effort into knowing shouldn't be deciding with matters of natural rights for other people?
I'm of the opinion that if you haven't read at least one of these books, you shouldn't head to the polls: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Publius' Federalist, or de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
Again, I understand that the universal right to vote is a basic principle of American democracy now. But if the basic principles are wrong, everything built upon them is likely to be wrong as well. Just because a principle is basic to the populace does not mean it should go unquestioned.
Let me put it to you this way: would you let a group of 18 year old kids who have never worked on or even examined how vehicles work repair your car? Would you drive that car afterwords?
If you are like me, you are thinking of course not! That's a sure way of getting killed, along with whoever is in your car and whoever you happen to hit. Government is far more complicated than cars and the stakes are much higher: over a hundred million people died due to tyrannical governments in the last century. That doesn't include war. That is just governments butchering their own people.
My recent experiences in a history classroom have revealed just how little many students know about history or government. And they are two years away from voting. Many of the advanced political science students cannot tell how many female justices are on the Supreme Court (hint: if you can't, I'm heavily implying you are not qualified to take part in government). Doubts I once had about this study disappeared quickly. If anything, I think those numbers are skewed towards the brighter Americans, as those more likely to do poorly would refuse to take that test in the first place.
I'll grant that implementing restrictions on voting would be difficult. Politically, in fact, it would be impossible, as those who would lose that right would certainly use any chance to vote before implementation to protect that right.
But as a matter of principle, shouldn't we only encourage people to vote if they have made a concerted effort to understand good governance and current events? Rather than telling everyone to go vote, shouldn't we set a societal norm that those who do not put any effort into knowing shouldn't be deciding with matters of natural rights for other people?
I'm of the opinion that if you haven't read at least one of these books, you shouldn't head to the polls: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Publius' Federalist, or de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
Again, I understand that the universal right to vote is a basic principle of American democracy now. But if the basic principles are wrong, everything built upon them is likely to be wrong as well. Just because a principle is basic to the populace does not mean it should go unquestioned.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
52 to 48
I remember this collection of photos, 52 to 48, came out right after the 2008 election. I recall not reacting well to it. Somehow or another, it came to my mind again today, so I took a peek around, wondering if I would react better towards it.
I didn't. If anything, it may irritate me even more today than it did then. Mostly it is a bunch of young Obama voting hipsters putting up messages of how we all need to come together. You know, days after declaring Republicans warmongers, liars, corporate whores, bigots, and fools.
Sure, just like you did under Bush. And implying we were not putting the country first prior to the election just kind of irks me.
This guy votes. Proof positive democracy can be a bad thing.
You had my back when Republicans were the second coming of the Nazis? Sure, I have your back, just like you had mine. And it is spelled fifty two.
We were prior to that election, too. Just a thought.
ObamaCare is all that comes to mind. That, and Obama declaring "I won" when Republicans offered ideas.
What gets me is so many young people actually bought into Obama's promises to move the nation into a post-partisan era. Have none of them read Federalist 10? There will never be a post-partisan age; we are never going to be permanently united, a "purple" country if you will. Considering how "48" was treated, 52 should not have been surprised that the opposition would be dogged in their fight to oppose the new leadership. It frightens me that so many could honestly believe that they could be so downright partisan and nasty for years prior to an election, win absolute power, and think posting a few cutesy pictures about reconciliation would somehow defuse future partisanship. And they overwhelmingly tend to be young people. I do not think so many blatantly uninformed citizens have ever come out to vote prior to that election and it downright scared me. Having seen the results, I should have been more scared than I was.
I try not to use this blog to blow off steam, though it has happened a few times. The actual lesson here is that my generation and younger seem to have had a piss poor education and that so long as people exist, they will disagree passionately on policy. All the pictures of happy hipsters in the world will never change that.
I didn't. If anything, it may irritate me even more today than it did then. Mostly it is a bunch of young Obama voting hipsters putting up messages of how we all need to come together. You know, days after declaring Republicans warmongers, liars, corporate whores, bigots, and fools.
Sure, just like you did under Bush. And implying we were not putting the country first prior to the election just kind of irks me.
This guy votes. Proof positive democracy can be a bad thing.
You had my back when Republicans were the second coming of the Nazis? Sure, I have your back, just like you had mine. And it is spelled fifty two.
We were prior to that election, too. Just a thought.
ObamaCare is all that comes to mind. That, and Obama declaring "I won" when Republicans offered ideas.
What gets me is so many young people actually bought into Obama's promises to move the nation into a post-partisan era. Have none of them read Federalist 10? There will never be a post-partisan age; we are never going to be permanently united, a "purple" country if you will. Considering how "48" was treated, 52 should not have been surprised that the opposition would be dogged in their fight to oppose the new leadership. It frightens me that so many could honestly believe that they could be so downright partisan and nasty for years prior to an election, win absolute power, and think posting a few cutesy pictures about reconciliation would somehow defuse future partisanship. And they overwhelmingly tend to be young people. I do not think so many blatantly uninformed citizens have ever come out to vote prior to that election and it downright scared me. Having seen the results, I should have been more scared than I was.
I try not to use this blog to blow off steam, though it has happened a few times. The actual lesson here is that my generation and younger seem to have had a piss poor education and that so long as people exist, they will disagree passionately on policy. All the pictures of happy hipsters in the world will never change that.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Religious Insanity
Oh my God. What an unimaginable mess this Ground Zero Mosque has become. Let us just get a few things straight:
1) Thousands of Americans were butchered at the Twin Towers by Muslim terrorists. Any opinion not recognizing this fact as being very salient today should be rejected out of hand. The vast majority of Americans remember that day vividly; anything resembling a victory monument is going to go over badly.
2) This mosque looks like a victory monument. The history of Islamic conquests show prominent places in the Western World being converted into mosques (Hagia Sophia was a former church; the Al Aqsa Mosque is built on the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple). The Twin Towers were prominent symbols of America's wealth and prosperity; they most certainly were not attacked at random. No, this mosque is not literally at the site of the Towers, but it is as close to it as possible and at a site destroyed by that terrorist attack. The complete lack of willingness to negotiate on this point by the mosque builders lead me to believe that it is intentionally built close to the terrorist site. It does not matter what the actual intent is, mostly because it is not possible to know; the point is, the optics are horrible.
3) Americans do not hate Muslims. Given everything, the remarkably low rate of violence against Muslims shows we do not blame all Muslims for 9/11 or our current War on Terror. President Bush made great efforts to separate terrorists from peaceful Muslims, both on the battlefield and in our minds. Yes, isolated incidents of hatred can be found, but just as many against whites, protestants, males, the wealthy, Latinos, or any other grouping can be found, and such anecdotes are not proof of widespread hatred among the populace.
4) Opposing this mosque is neither a violation of 1st Amendment rights or proof of hatred. The vast majority of those who oppose a mosque being built at that site have made the caveat that Muslims have the right to do so. The principle is that Americans must allow such things legally; it has never meant that Americans must like what other people do or that they should not apply social pressure to change that offending behavior.
5) This mosque is not about bridging divides and establishing community healing. The community has made it clear that building a mosque at this spot sticks in their craw; a religious leader truly dedicated towards peace and community would not become adamant that the community just deal with it, sticking it to that community again.
6) Americans are tired of being accused of hatred. Christmas cards given out by teachers can land a person in trouble for not being sensitive to other cultures, but asking (asking! not attacking, asking!) another religion not to build on what is basically a graveyard of Americans killed in the name of that very religion is proof of hatred? Regardless of where you stand in this cultural battle, the optics are pretty clear that Christians must be sensitive to any potential sore point (real or imagined) of other cultures but at no point are other religions required to return the favor. People are sick of that arrangement and this mosque is where a line has been drawn.
7) Despite that, Americans will not support blatant acts of hatred. This Qu'ran burning fool in Florida garnished roughly 0% of Americans to his side. People on all sides of the political spectrum and vast majorities of Churches, Mosques, Temples, and other religious institutions have condemned this act.
This situation is getting out of control quickly. The perception alone that Muslims do not care about a very sensitive issue to most Americans, or perhaps worse that they are intentionally jabbing at it, is going to breed more prejudice against American Muslims than 9/11 itself did. The terrorist attack was a clear example of lunatics; this mosque is supposedly being built by "moderates." After decades of being prodded to be more sensitive towards others, Americans expect the favor to be returned.
As for the Qu'ran burning: stupid, but it proves my point. The American government burns a bunch of Bibles last year; George Bush is shown defecating on Jesus in South Park (an episode that drives the censorship point home); Dogma. Do Christians respond with violence? No! But draw a picture of Muhammad and people end up dead. A group burning Bibles wouldn't even get notice in the news, but a very few lunatics in Gainesville decide to burn a few Qu'rans and the entire world goes into a hissy fit.
In short, the Ground Zero Mosque is doing irreparable damage to our society. Opposition is based on very raw feelings concerning this area and Islam, not on an outright hatred of the religion. In the name of peace, sensitivity, and community, the leaders of this mosque project should accept one of the multiple offers to build the mosque elsewhere in an effort to show they do indeed respect the opinions and mores of the American nation.
1) Thousands of Americans were butchered at the Twin Towers by Muslim terrorists. Any opinion not recognizing this fact as being very salient today should be rejected out of hand. The vast majority of Americans remember that day vividly; anything resembling a victory monument is going to go over badly.
2) This mosque looks like a victory monument. The history of Islamic conquests show prominent places in the Western World being converted into mosques (Hagia Sophia was a former church; the Al Aqsa Mosque is built on the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple). The Twin Towers were prominent symbols of America's wealth and prosperity; they most certainly were not attacked at random. No, this mosque is not literally at the site of the Towers, but it is as close to it as possible and at a site destroyed by that terrorist attack. The complete lack of willingness to negotiate on this point by the mosque builders lead me to believe that it is intentionally built close to the terrorist site. It does not matter what the actual intent is, mostly because it is not possible to know; the point is, the optics are horrible.
3) Americans do not hate Muslims. Given everything, the remarkably low rate of violence against Muslims shows we do not blame all Muslims for 9/11 or our current War on Terror. President Bush made great efforts to separate terrorists from peaceful Muslims, both on the battlefield and in our minds. Yes, isolated incidents of hatred can be found, but just as many against whites, protestants, males, the wealthy, Latinos, or any other grouping can be found, and such anecdotes are not proof of widespread hatred among the populace.
4) Opposing this mosque is neither a violation of 1st Amendment rights or proof of hatred. The vast majority of those who oppose a mosque being built at that site have made the caveat that Muslims have the right to do so. The principle is that Americans must allow such things legally; it has never meant that Americans must like what other people do or that they should not apply social pressure to change that offending behavior.
5) This mosque is not about bridging divides and establishing community healing. The community has made it clear that building a mosque at this spot sticks in their craw; a religious leader truly dedicated towards peace and community would not become adamant that the community just deal with it, sticking it to that community again.
6) Americans are tired of being accused of hatred. Christmas cards given out by teachers can land a person in trouble for not being sensitive to other cultures, but asking (asking! not attacking, asking!) another religion not to build on what is basically a graveyard of Americans killed in the name of that very religion is proof of hatred? Regardless of where you stand in this cultural battle, the optics are pretty clear that Christians must be sensitive to any potential sore point (real or imagined) of other cultures but at no point are other religions required to return the favor. People are sick of that arrangement and this mosque is where a line has been drawn.
7) Despite that, Americans will not support blatant acts of hatred. This Qu'ran burning fool in Florida garnished roughly 0% of Americans to his side. People on all sides of the political spectrum and vast majorities of Churches, Mosques, Temples, and other religious institutions have condemned this act.
This situation is getting out of control quickly. The perception alone that Muslims do not care about a very sensitive issue to most Americans, or perhaps worse that they are intentionally jabbing at it, is going to breed more prejudice against American Muslims than 9/11 itself did. The terrorist attack was a clear example of lunatics; this mosque is supposedly being built by "moderates." After decades of being prodded to be more sensitive towards others, Americans expect the favor to be returned.
As for the Qu'ran burning: stupid, but it proves my point. The American government burns a bunch of Bibles last year; George Bush is shown defecating on Jesus in South Park (an episode that drives the censorship point home); Dogma. Do Christians respond with violence? No! But draw a picture of Muhammad and people end up dead. A group burning Bibles wouldn't even get notice in the news, but a very few lunatics in Gainesville decide to burn a few Qu'rans and the entire world goes into a hissy fit.
In short, the Ground Zero Mosque is doing irreparable damage to our society. Opposition is based on very raw feelings concerning this area and Islam, not on an outright hatred of the religion. In the name of peace, sensitivity, and community, the leaders of this mosque project should accept one of the multiple offers to build the mosque elsewhere in an effort to show they do indeed respect the opinions and mores of the American nation.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Buck The Greenback?
During my random searches of the Internet, I came across this interesting project seeking a redesign for the American Dollar. Granted, replacing our currency would be a huge pain in the rear and add more uncertainty to a market that doesn't need it, but some of these designs are pretty impressive. Two particularly good designs pointed out by Heather are by Michael Tyznik and Dan Swenson. Swenson's $100 is gorgeous. The lines in the background (I'm not an artist and so have no idea what term to use there) give the impression of being in a glass building which generates an amazing effect with John Trumbull's "Signing of the Declaration of Independence." This image of an event that occurred 230+ years ago appears remarkably modern with that backdrop and I do not need to explain the symbolism there.
Tyznick's design includes Amendments from the Bill of Rights on the reverse of every bill. I very much like the idea of putting some statement of American ideals on our money apart from our Latin motto and "In God We Trust" but these Amendments are a bit clunky. They are also paired with American Presidents and politicians who did not create those Amendments, which might lead to unnecessary confusion with an audience not particularly well informed concerning history.
I have little to no artistic skills. Any design I actually tried to create would probably end up looking like this. That being said, I am curious: if we were to redesign our paper money, what should we put on it? I would like to see individuals beyond politicians, but very solid Americans would have to be chosen in such a way as to not generate controversy and not appear to be token appreciations to minorities. There are also a hell of a lot of choices to choose from, both for the individual on the obverse and the image on the reverse. I would like to see dollar bills generally following the Tyznick/Swenson model (Swenson being inspired by Tyznick's design) with the following figure, image, and quote on these denominations:
$1: George Washington/Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze/"The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." Thomas Paine, Common Sense
$2: Clara Barton/Bald Eagle/"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. " Daniel Webster
$5: Abraham Lincoln/Lincoln Monument/"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in"~Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address
$10: John Paul Jones/USS Constitution/"I have not yet begun to fight"
$20: Frederick Douglass/Statue of Liberty/"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous." Frederick Douglass
$50: Ralph Waldo Emerson/Grand Canyon (not sure which image of it would work best on a dollar bill)/"The best moments in life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawing of nature before its God." ~Emerson, "Nature"
$100: Benjamin Franklin/Signing of the Declaration of Independence (basically Swenson)/"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I really wanted to add Henry David Thoreau but I can't imagine him being happy about being on a dollar bill. I've also avoided using anyone within the last 100 or so years. This isn't a slam on them; there have been a hell of a lot of great Americans in that time period. When I think of money, though, I think those who appear should be almost mythical in their stature. In terms of actual people, time is really needed to establish that. Putting more modern faces inevitably leads to propaganda and controversy, which is about the last thing we need concerning our money. The Romans used to put images of Roma (the god personifying Rome) and other deities on their coins up until the collapse of the Republic, when they switched to the faces of current politicians instead.
Having attempted to create such a list, I can say it is a lot harder than one might imagine. I can certainly imagine some of the criticisms that would come my way for proposing this list. With such a minimal amount of space on seven separate types of bills, something important will inevitably be left off. If for no other reason, that seems like enough to not actually rework the subject matter of our dollar bills for the time being.
Tyznick's design includes Amendments from the Bill of Rights on the reverse of every bill. I very much like the idea of putting some statement of American ideals on our money apart from our Latin motto and "In God We Trust" but these Amendments are a bit clunky. They are also paired with American Presidents and politicians who did not create those Amendments, which might lead to unnecessary confusion with an audience not particularly well informed concerning history.
I have little to no artistic skills. Any design I actually tried to create would probably end up looking like this. That being said, I am curious: if we were to redesign our paper money, what should we put on it? I would like to see individuals beyond politicians, but very solid Americans would have to be chosen in such a way as to not generate controversy and not appear to be token appreciations to minorities. There are also a hell of a lot of choices to choose from, both for the individual on the obverse and the image on the reverse. I would like to see dollar bills generally following the Tyznick/Swenson model (Swenson being inspired by Tyznick's design) with the following figure, image, and quote on these denominations:
$1: George Washington/Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze/"The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." Thomas Paine, Common Sense
$2: Clara Barton/Bald Eagle/"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. " Daniel Webster
$5: Abraham Lincoln/Lincoln Monument/"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in"~Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address
$10: John Paul Jones/USS Constitution/"I have not yet begun to fight"
$20: Frederick Douglass/Statue of Liberty/"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous." Frederick Douglass
$50: Ralph Waldo Emerson/Grand Canyon (not sure which image of it would work best on a dollar bill)/"The best moments in life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawing of nature before its God." ~Emerson, "Nature"
$100: Benjamin Franklin/Signing of the Declaration of Independence (basically Swenson)/"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I really wanted to add Henry David Thoreau but I can't imagine him being happy about being on a dollar bill. I've also avoided using anyone within the last 100 or so years. This isn't a slam on them; there have been a hell of a lot of great Americans in that time period. When I think of money, though, I think those who appear should be almost mythical in their stature. In terms of actual people, time is really needed to establish that. Putting more modern faces inevitably leads to propaganda and controversy, which is about the last thing we need concerning our money. The Romans used to put images of Roma (the god personifying Rome) and other deities on their coins up until the collapse of the Republic, when they switched to the faces of current politicians instead.
Having attempted to create such a list, I can say it is a lot harder than one might imagine. I can certainly imagine some of the criticisms that would come my way for proposing this list. With such a minimal amount of space on seven separate types of bills, something important will inevitably be left off. If for no other reason, that seems like enough to not actually rework the subject matter of our dollar bills for the time being.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Missouri's Prop C, Federalism, and Nullification
On August 3rd, the people of the state of Missouri voted on a statute known as Proposition C. The statute asked if Missouri law should be amended to "deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?". The people of Missouri overwhelming approved of this measure, with 71% supporting. This new law was specifically designed to deny the federal government the ability to force citizens to buy health insurance. Similar measures are to be voted on in November in Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
While the proposition is labeled "symbolic" and not specifically called nullification, it is in fact a rare example of a state denying the federal government power within the territory of that state. Supporters of ObamaCare clearly see this proposition as a case of nullification; Dana Milbank said of Proposition C: "the initiative essentially declared null and void the federal health-care reform's requirement that individuals have health insurance." He calls nullification "a temper tantrum" and says those supporting Prop C "are jettisoning Article VI" of our Constitution with respect to the supremacy clause.
Milbank is wrong, both in respect to Prop C supporters "jettisoning Article VI" and with nullification being a "temper tantrum." Article VI only comes into play when laws are made in accordance with the Constitution; when the federal government attempts to overstep the boundaries placed upon it, Article VI no longer applies. The "Tenthers" (referring to the 10th Amendment and those who rest their argument against ObamaCare upon it) do not say states can just nullify any law they dislike; the argument is any power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states and the people thereof. As Milbank may not have noticed, the power to force people to buy products is not one delegated to Congress, the President, or anyone else at the federal level.
Nullification, far from being a "temper tantrum", is actually a theory of federalism that deserves reconsideration. Nearly everyone who knows of nullification automatically ties it to antebellum (that bellum being the Civil War) South, with the better informed remembering South Carolina threatening to nullify tariff laws and prior to that Thomas Jefferson arguing that nullification was necessary to stop abuses of power of the Adam's Administration (with respect towards the Alien and Sedition Acts). The issue of nullification is generally lumped in with secession and then slavery, though it need not be, just as government efforts to fight tobacco use need not be tied in with the Third Reich. Nullification attempts to deal with a flaw in our federal system: what happens if the federal government oversteps its bounds? What remedies exist?
Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government via the Constitution that attempts to limit the concentration of political power. Checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch are one way of achieving this end. The second is by dividing power on another axis, between local and national leaders. At the time of ratification, states were quite jealous of a possible central government; indeed, their first attempt at creating a central government, the Articles of Confederation, failed because of that jealousy of power. While a clear need existed for a central government capable of at least raising revenue, states were still not eager to create a powerful central government. In the end, they created a federal system in which the federal government would have predominance over foreign affairs and streamline commerce and trade while the states would control most internal matters. Powers which the federal government would have were specifically spelled out; the 10th Amendment was passed to make sure any power not mentioned belonged to the states. The federal government, when acting within its delegated powers, would have to be followed (a la Article VI), but beyond those powers it had no authority.
Governments are composed of people and in particular politicians. Everyone wants more control and politicians in particular, so it should come as no surprise that those in government would try to expand their powers. Within a decade, the new federal government was expanding its powers, much to the chagrin of Republicans (old school, as in anti-Federalists Democrat-Republicans). The problem faced by Thomas Jefferson is the same faced by John C. Calhoun and the same facing us today: what do we do if the federal government attempts to overstep its bounds?
Those bashing nullification generally have one answer to this problem: seek remedy in the courts. Which courts? Why, the federal courts, of course! The problems here are obvious. For starters, the federal courts are a part of the federal government, one of the parties involved in the controversy. The second, much more salient problem, is that the Supreme Court may make a ruling based on policy, rather than legal reasons. Just because a majority of justices wish to see the federal government expand for ideological reasons does not mean the states actually consented to the central government having that power. If anyone should know what the state delegated or did not delegate, it should be the state itself.
It is rather shocking the Founding Fathers should have left out a mechanism for determining such controversies. Of all people, the Fathers knew that governments are not by nature prone to protect the rights of others out of the goodness of their hearts. But a lack of a clearly defined mechanism does not mean we should default in favor of unchecked federal expansion.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, largely seen as the definitive authority in what the Constitution means and why those provisions were made) authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 against the Alien and Sedition Acts. I want my reader to go through their argument here. The state of Kentucky adopted two similar resolutions (again largely written by Jefferson) in 1798 and 1799, which should also be read. In particular, consider this statement from the Kentucky Resolution passed in 1799:
That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy...
Nullification and a judiciary upholding the written Constitution are the only checks on an ever expanding federal government; we know from history that the judiciary cannot be trusted because more often than not justices wish to see the government expanded regardless of the contract of the Constitution. The only defense against such abuses is for the states to oppose such laws within their own jurisdiction. This is the natural check placed on an expanding federal government, no less so than judicial review, though never mentioned in the Constitution, clearly follows from the concept of checks and balances to keep the legislative and executive branch from exceeding their powers. The Kentucky Resolution of 1798 emphasizes this point: "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
What Milbanks confuses for a temper tantrum is in fact what should occur when the central government oversteps its bounds and attempts to wield power the people of this nation never granted them. Were nullification more widely accepted and practiced, the federal government would indeed have a difficult time micromanaging internal affairs of states and people far beyond their delegated powers or ability. Those seeking a government with unchecked power certainly fear nullification; those seeking the preservation of liberty will likely find no better friend.
I intend to stop here. My reader should know that I am aware that incorporating nullification into our current political culture would be very complex and probably require reworking the federal government's ability to use funds as carrots and sticks. That will require a longer, more in depth work than I present here. As of now, with a federal government once again expanding its powers into unprecedented (and not delegated) waters, it is enough to show that some mechanism is needed to preserve the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution and that nullification is the only logical means towards that end.
While the proposition is labeled "symbolic" and not specifically called nullification, it is in fact a rare example of a state denying the federal government power within the territory of that state. Supporters of ObamaCare clearly see this proposition as a case of nullification; Dana Milbank said of Proposition C: "the initiative essentially declared null and void the federal health-care reform's requirement that individuals have health insurance." He calls nullification "a temper tantrum" and says those supporting Prop C "are jettisoning Article VI" of our Constitution with respect to the supremacy clause.
Milbank is wrong, both in respect to Prop C supporters "jettisoning Article VI" and with nullification being a "temper tantrum." Article VI only comes into play when laws are made in accordance with the Constitution; when the federal government attempts to overstep the boundaries placed upon it, Article VI no longer applies. The "Tenthers" (referring to the 10th Amendment and those who rest their argument against ObamaCare upon it) do not say states can just nullify any law they dislike; the argument is any power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states and the people thereof. As Milbank may not have noticed, the power to force people to buy products is not one delegated to Congress, the President, or anyone else at the federal level.
Nullification, far from being a "temper tantrum", is actually a theory of federalism that deserves reconsideration. Nearly everyone who knows of nullification automatically ties it to antebellum (that bellum being the Civil War) South, with the better informed remembering South Carolina threatening to nullify tariff laws and prior to that Thomas Jefferson arguing that nullification was necessary to stop abuses of power of the Adam's Administration (with respect towards the Alien and Sedition Acts). The issue of nullification is generally lumped in with secession and then slavery, though it need not be, just as government efforts to fight tobacco use need not be tied in with the Third Reich. Nullification attempts to deal with a flaw in our federal system: what happens if the federal government oversteps its bounds? What remedies exist?
Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government via the Constitution that attempts to limit the concentration of political power. Checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch are one way of achieving this end. The second is by dividing power on another axis, between local and national leaders. At the time of ratification, states were quite jealous of a possible central government; indeed, their first attempt at creating a central government, the Articles of Confederation, failed because of that jealousy of power. While a clear need existed for a central government capable of at least raising revenue, states were still not eager to create a powerful central government. In the end, they created a federal system in which the federal government would have predominance over foreign affairs and streamline commerce and trade while the states would control most internal matters. Powers which the federal government would have were specifically spelled out; the 10th Amendment was passed to make sure any power not mentioned belonged to the states. The federal government, when acting within its delegated powers, would have to be followed (a la Article VI), but beyond those powers it had no authority.
Governments are composed of people and in particular politicians. Everyone wants more control and politicians in particular, so it should come as no surprise that those in government would try to expand their powers. Within a decade, the new federal government was expanding its powers, much to the chagrin of Republicans (old school, as in anti-Federalists Democrat-Republicans). The problem faced by Thomas Jefferson is the same faced by John C. Calhoun and the same facing us today: what do we do if the federal government attempts to overstep its bounds?
Those bashing nullification generally have one answer to this problem: seek remedy in the courts. Which courts? Why, the federal courts, of course! The problems here are obvious. For starters, the federal courts are a part of the federal government, one of the parties involved in the controversy. The second, much more salient problem, is that the Supreme Court may make a ruling based on policy, rather than legal reasons. Just because a majority of justices wish to see the federal government expand for ideological reasons does not mean the states actually consented to the central government having that power. If anyone should know what the state delegated or did not delegate, it should be the state itself.
It is rather shocking the Founding Fathers should have left out a mechanism for determining such controversies. Of all people, the Fathers knew that governments are not by nature prone to protect the rights of others out of the goodness of their hearts. But a lack of a clearly defined mechanism does not mean we should default in favor of unchecked federal expansion.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, largely seen as the definitive authority in what the Constitution means and why those provisions were made) authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 against the Alien and Sedition Acts. I want my reader to go through their argument here. The state of Kentucky adopted two similar resolutions (again largely written by Jefferson) in 1798 and 1799, which should also be read. In particular, consider this statement from the Kentucky Resolution passed in 1799:
That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy...
Nullification and a judiciary upholding the written Constitution are the only checks on an ever expanding federal government; we know from history that the judiciary cannot be trusted because more often than not justices wish to see the government expanded regardless of the contract of the Constitution. The only defense against such abuses is for the states to oppose such laws within their own jurisdiction. This is the natural check placed on an expanding federal government, no less so than judicial review, though never mentioned in the Constitution, clearly follows from the concept of checks and balances to keep the legislative and executive branch from exceeding their powers. The Kentucky Resolution of 1798 emphasizes this point: "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
What Milbanks confuses for a temper tantrum is in fact what should occur when the central government oversteps its bounds and attempts to wield power the people of this nation never granted them. Were nullification more widely accepted and practiced, the federal government would indeed have a difficult time micromanaging internal affairs of states and people far beyond their delegated powers or ability. Those seeking a government with unchecked power certainly fear nullification; those seeking the preservation of liberty will likely find no better friend.
I intend to stop here. My reader should know that I am aware that incorporating nullification into our current political culture would be very complex and probably require reworking the federal government's ability to use funds as carrots and sticks. That will require a longer, more in depth work than I present here. As of now, with a federal government once again expanding its powers into unprecedented (and not delegated) waters, it is enough to show that some mechanism is needed to preserve the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution and that nullification is the only logical means towards that end.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Declaration of Independence
This Independence Day marks the 234th anniversary of the adoption of our nation's Declaration of Independence. With parades, fireworks, friends, family, and much fanfare and patriotism, we celebrate not only our independence but the principles laid forth in one of the most remarkable documents ever written by human hand. The main purpose of the Declaration was to explain to the world why we would be willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes in order to separate ourselves from the oppressive yoke of a foreign government. Most of the Declaration is no longer meaningful to Americans outside of a historical understanding of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War; the second paragraph, however, defines the very point and purpose of government in this nation or any nation. In a federal democracy, where the people elect representatives into office, it is of the utmost importance that those citizens know why we have government at all, what legitimate government would look like, and what actions are beyond the pale so that office holders seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the citizens of our nation and justice itself may be held accountable and removed from positions of power.
Let us consider this paragraph and the universal truths contained within it:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Let's consider these self evident truths:
1. We are all created equal. This statement has been a source of confusion for some Americans, but let us think about it. We are created...this implies a Creator. We are equal...at the moment of creation. This is not a promise that we shall be equal in all aspects, but rather that we are, from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death, equal in the respect that we are human beings.
2. As human beings, we are endowed equally by that inferred Creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and equality of result are incompatible with one another. If we cannot all be awesome baseball players like David Ortiz, the only way to create equality of result would be to restrict the liberty of great baseball players to use their skill until we are all down to the skill of the weakest player. The same goes for inventors, doctors, teachers, businessmen, physical looks, social ability, and anywhere else inequality exists in skill, talent, and wealth. We are equal in our unalienable rights; we are free to use our liberty to rise above others so long as those unalienable rights are not violated.
3. To protect those unalienable rights, we establish government. The fact is, we cannot trust the honor system that each of us will not violate the unalienable rights of other people as we try to advance our own positions. We create government to limit our range of action to anything that does not violate the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (effectively property, for those familiar with John Locke). Government has the right to restrict us because we consent to these restrictions; we consent to these restrictions because it removes us from the State of Nature; we give up the right to harm the unalienable rights of others so that ours will not be harmed, either. This is the purpose of government, this and nothing else.
4. Governments are run by men, men who have the same passions and desire for advancement as the men being governed. Should governments abuse their power and become a threat to the very lives, liberties, and properties they were created to protect, those governments become usurpers and rebels against which the people have every right to oppose and remove. Governments must protect the unalienable rights of all citizens; the rights of no citizens may be sacrificed for the advancement of others. Every citizen has unalienable rights and no majority ever assembled has the authority to deny any minority, however so small or hated, their proper rights. Redistributing with the force of law the happiness of men, earned by honest labor and voluntary trade, always involves a violation of the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness of those whose wealth is redistributed away from them.
5. Revolution is a nasty business. Lives, liberty, property, the very things we wish to preserve, are all put on the line during times of war. Our Declaration does not clearly say when the line is crossed between transient causes and a long train of abuses; the best we can do is gleam what information we can from the context of the Declaration itself and the history leading up to that war in determining where the line is between foolish uprisings and a noble overthrow of a tyrant.
My fellow citizens know well enough what event we celebrate (our independence from Great Britain); I write this to remind them what principles inspired our Founding Fathers to create the greatest nation, a nation conceived in liberty and based on universal ideals all may participate in rather than ethnicity or religion. I write to remind my fellow citizens of these principles and that our nation is great only so long as we jealously guard them against those who would ignore them, either out of evil intent or mislead desire for good.
Let us consider this paragraph and the universal truths contained within it:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Let's consider these self evident truths:
1. We are all created equal. This statement has been a source of confusion for some Americans, but let us think about it. We are created...this implies a Creator. We are equal...at the moment of creation. This is not a promise that we shall be equal in all aspects, but rather that we are, from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death, equal in the respect that we are human beings.
2. As human beings, we are endowed equally by that inferred Creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and equality of result are incompatible with one another. If we cannot all be awesome baseball players like David Ortiz, the only way to create equality of result would be to restrict the liberty of great baseball players to use their skill until we are all down to the skill of the weakest player. The same goes for inventors, doctors, teachers, businessmen, physical looks, social ability, and anywhere else inequality exists in skill, talent, and wealth. We are equal in our unalienable rights; we are free to use our liberty to rise above others so long as those unalienable rights are not violated.
3. To protect those unalienable rights, we establish government. The fact is, we cannot trust the honor system that each of us will not violate the unalienable rights of other people as we try to advance our own positions. We create government to limit our range of action to anything that does not violate the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (effectively property, for those familiar with John Locke). Government has the right to restrict us because we consent to these restrictions; we consent to these restrictions because it removes us from the State of Nature; we give up the right to harm the unalienable rights of others so that ours will not be harmed, either. This is the purpose of government, this and nothing else.
4. Governments are run by men, men who have the same passions and desire for advancement as the men being governed. Should governments abuse their power and become a threat to the very lives, liberties, and properties they were created to protect, those governments become usurpers and rebels against which the people have every right to oppose and remove. Governments must protect the unalienable rights of all citizens; the rights of no citizens may be sacrificed for the advancement of others. Every citizen has unalienable rights and no majority ever assembled has the authority to deny any minority, however so small or hated, their proper rights. Redistributing with the force of law the happiness of men, earned by honest labor and voluntary trade, always involves a violation of the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness of those whose wealth is redistributed away from them.
5. Revolution is a nasty business. Lives, liberty, property, the very things we wish to preserve, are all put on the line during times of war. Our Declaration does not clearly say when the line is crossed between transient causes and a long train of abuses; the best we can do is gleam what information we can from the context of the Declaration itself and the history leading up to that war in determining where the line is between foolish uprisings and a noble overthrow of a tyrant.
My fellow citizens know well enough what event we celebrate (our independence from Great Britain); I write this to remind them what principles inspired our Founding Fathers to create the greatest nation, a nation conceived in liberty and based on universal ideals all may participate in rather than ethnicity or religion. I write to remind my fellow citizens of these principles and that our nation is great only so long as we jealously guard them against those who would ignore them, either out of evil intent or mislead desire for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)