Thursday, December 20, 2007

Was Tom Tancredo Ever Really Running For President?

Tom Tancredo announced today that he would be quitting the presidential race. As with most things Tancredo, the Colorado Republican's decision has left me with some very mixed feelings. My big beef with Tancredo all along has been that he was so concerned with one issue -- illegal immigration -- that he neglected most all other issues. I don't think any one issue is important enough to elect a president based solely on his or her stance on that issue, so I've felt for a long time that Tancredo was the weakest candidate in the race. I've also felt for a while that Tancredo himself was not really that set on becoming president. Rather, I felt like he was using the prominence and media time afforded to him as a presidential candidate to talk about illegal immigration. He ran more of a crusade than a campaign, and he seems to believe that he was very successful in pushing an oft-ignored issue into the forefront of American political discourse. Perhaps Tancredo did do all he wanted to do, but I still feel unhappy that he would quit the presidential race just as it was entering its most exciting period. I don't see other longshot presidential candidates of principle like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich dropping out on the eve of the primaries -- those candidates are going to keep promulgating their ideas as long as they can remain in the public spotlight, and they will at least give their supporters an opportunity to cast votes on their behalf. Tancredo has denied his supporters that opportunity. Some of them will no doubt vote for their former candidate's endorsee, Mitt Romney, but I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Tancredites are feeling dazed and confused tonight. Tancredo was certainly the most consistent and impassioned opponent of illegal immigration running for president; it's hard to say how much of the rhetoric other candidates spew about illegal immigration is not simply lip service rather than an exposition of genuinely held beliefs. Illegal immigration, after all, is one thing that very few candidates would actually come out and support for fear of angering a sizable portion of the electorate; Mike Gravel is an exception to this general rule, as usual.

I did think that Tom Tancredo had a role to play in this election even though he wasn't a particularly impressive candidate. Many people seem to dismiss the man as a hatemonger, a racist, and a nativist, but I don't think those characterizations are necessarily fair based on Tancredo's public presentation of his ideas. The nativist label actually does fit the man pretty well -- certainly Tancredo made it clear that he was all about preserving America's present culture and opposing immigration because it threatened that predominant culture. Although illegal immigration earned his deepest ire, Tancredo also was willing to state that he would like to see a moratorium on immigration in general. I don't think Tancredo generally expressed his nativist views in a particularly hateful way, but he no doubt echoed many arguments previously expressed by those opposed to Irish, Italian, Polish, Asian, and other immigration in America's not-so-distant past who did not always even try to hide their prejudices against certain ethnic groups. However, this nativism was only part of Tancredo's larger argument; to me, his most powerful criticisms of illegal immigration centered on economic issues. American "culture" is a very hard thing to pin down, but anyone can understand that an influx of cheap labor could be very bad for people who want to work for a decent (preferably high) wage. Likewise, the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are people and as such have as much need for services as anyone else makes it easy to understand that illegal immigration can impact health care (and cost us money). Tancredo was excellent at linking illegal immigration to other issues like the cost of health care and the future of Social Security; in my opinion, it is that ability that is most lacking in the other candidates who claim to oppose illegal immigration. Thus, Tancredo's role in this election was to provide a voice for Americans who are worried about illegal immigration for a wide variety of reasons. The other candidates will continue to speak to those Americans, but I'm not sure any of them will be able to speak for them quite as Tancredo did.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

China: Most Favored, But Nobody's Favorite

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, China has probably been the nation most consistently disliked and distrusted by Americans. That's hardly unreasonable considering the reasons China tends to make the headlines: human rights abuses, poor working conditions, and imperialistic policies towards Tibet, Taiwan, and others. Perhaps the only good press China can get with any regularity is related to its rise into an economic superpower, but the methods China has used to rise are themselves very controversial. China the economic power is associated with cheap labor, currency manipulation, and indifference towards (if not complete neglect of) safety concerns.

China may not be loved, but its impact on American pocketbooks has been complex and by no means entirely negative. The abundance of cheap Chinese goods has enabled the average American to buy more. Despite recurring campaigns to get people to "Buy American," retailers like Wal-Mart that market mainly Chinese goods continue to attract millions of American consumers. There are definitely two sides to China's economic impact on the United States. You could focus on the American manufacturing jobs relocated to China, but you could also focus on the new jobs created by Wal-Mart, which is essentially a mass market for Chinese goods and definitely owes a lot of its continuing prosperity to China. Personally, I also think it's a good thing the prices of electronics are low enough that the average American can own a TV and a computer if they want to. I won't attribute that to China specifically, but China is certainly a major supplier of cheap electronics right now and consequently it is helping Americans become connected in an increasingly information-oriented world.

Ultimately, how one feels about China trade tends to depend a lot on how one feels about free trade. Personally, I support free trade when it is accompanied by free information -- that is, I like the notion of a global market in which every country can buy or sell, which will naturally lead to specialization by those that can supply particular things more cheaply than others, but I think that the flow of information about the goods and services that are bought and sold needs to be as free as the trade itself. Some would rightly chastise China over its own commitment to free trade, but in my opinion China's real failure has been caused by its opposition to the free flow of information. What China has become in many people's minds is a peddler of poison, but the poison has been labeled as pet food or as toys rather than for what it really is. A lack of commitment to safety in both China and the United States has enabled imported and mislabeled Chinese poison to cause death, heartache, and anxiety, which is unacceptable in my opinion. I'm confident that the market will speak, eventually -- nobody really wants to substitute poison, even cheap poison, for food or toys -- but the tragedy is that this situation could repeat itself if consumers and governments don't gain greater access to information about all products bought and sold on the global market. The hysteria over Chinese toys right now could soon be eclipsed by a health crisis caused by Vietnamese catfish or Mexican textiles. The overall problem will remain so long as information is not free and widely available.

I heard some good things from the Democrats in the Iowa NPR debate on the China issue. Barack Obama and Joe Biden impressed me with their commitment to address China trade issues within the context of existing free trade agreements. Obama suggested that American inspectors should inspect Chinese exports in China before they ever reach American shores like Japan does for Chinese goods destined for China. That sounds like a good idea to me -- as long as there is some reasonably thorough inspection going on at some point in the trading process, we will be better off than we are now. Biden and Obama agreed that America had every right to choose to apply much more pressure on China than it has chosen to apply to this point. Biden refused to countenance the idea of a tariff war and instead argued that the World Trade Organization offered enough tools to enable America to stand up for its rights. Not every candidate was so keen on continuing business as usual. Dennis Kucinich is unashamedly protectionist. For him, China trade is just one big stumbling block. Even if it wasn't dangerous to Americans' health, China trade would still weaken American manufacturing and take away American jobs. He makes about as good a case against free trade as I have ever heard, and he is certainly consistent in his positions (for instance, he's as opposed to NAFTA as he is to free China trade). You certainly cannot argue that many of the "free trader" legislators that support subsidies for certain domestic producers are as consistent in their political philosophy. Kucinich's point of view was not the most unique expressed, however: Mike Gravel was the one candidate who seemed to be eager to support China. Bear in mind that the former Alaska senator's speaking time in the NPR debate was severely limited so he undoubtedly didn't get his chance to get his fair say in on any of the issues discussed. Nonetheless, Gravel did articulate one message fairly clearly: namely, he criticized the Democrats who condemned China for not considering Chinese interests as well as American interests when formulating America's trade policies. I do agree with Gravel in the sense that the far-reaching consequences of all political actions should be considered, but in the context of the debate Gravel sounded frankly as indifferent to safety concerns as the Chinese industrialists have shown themselves to be. That point of view is not really consistent with what I know of Gravel, but I have to strongly disagree with him if he thinks bettering the economic situation of China by continuing uninterrupted trade with China is more important than protecting pets, children, and everyone else who actually uses those goods.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Iran: Crouching Tiger or Paper Tiger?

The recent National Intelligence Estimate which reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is both heartening and frustrating. The good news, of course, is that if the report is true then Iran is not moving in a nuclear direction; thus, the World War III feared by President Bush is a little bit less of an immanent danger, and the political climate has changed to such an extent that war with Iran is becoming much less likely. The Estimate is also frustrating, though; why is it that out of nowhere intelligence can surface which contradicts years of rhetoric and prior intelligence? In the pursuit of truth, mistakes will be made....that's a fundamental life lesson I've learned as a science student. In intelligence, the consequences of a mistake are so great that I can't help but worry about the overall state of America's ability to gather information on her enemies. It has become clear that the Iraq war was predicated on flawed intelligence. In the case of Iran, we don't know which intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons capability is really correct yet, but we do know that Iran either does have a post-2003 nuclear weapons program or it does not. I'm more inclined to believe the present assessment reflected in the most recent Estimate more because it is current and presumably based on an total intelligence picture that includes information gathered over many years, but can we really trust intelligence anymore in general? If intelligence is not consistently trustworthy, it can hardly be used as either a basis either for waging war or for making peace.

Although I am adamantly opposed to any war with Iran, I'm still very suspicious of Iran because of its past rhetoric and past actions. Cautious diplomacy is in order, I think...if a peaceful relationship between Iran and the United States can be established, the world will be a much better place, but I'm not too keen on the idea of bargaining with Iran at this point. Let's let the rhetoric cool down on both sides before there's talk of deeper economic cooperation. The time for investment and nuclear power collaboration is yet to come.

The Democratic candidates in the Iowa NPR debate seemed to largely be in favor new policy towards Iran in which diplomacy would be emphasized. While most of the candidates made it clear that they did believe Iran to still be a threat to some extent, they uniformly disagreed with President Bush's position that the National Intelligence Estimate should not change America's attitude towards Iran. Barack Obama was the first to mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah as an example of the continuing threat Iran still poses, which Hillary Clinton echoed. Mike Gravel was the only candidate to openly declare that he did not consider Iran to be any threat whatsoever; he even made an argument for Iran's right to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, comparing Iran's aid to those organizations to the United States' foreign aid to Israel. I'm glad that Gravel was bold enough to declare Iran as not being a threat; sometimes, I feel like Americans after 9/11 are way too easily frightened of countries and terrorist organizations that do not have anywhere near the resources that the American government has. Gravel isn't scared of Iran, and his contribution to the discussion was to me a reminder that, although Iran can do plenty of harm in the world, it's not as if an Iranian invasion or a nuclear holocaust is very likely to occur in the near future. America can be suspicious of Iran and treat it with caution, but it does not need to be so frightened of Iran that it acts impulsively and irrationally. Unlike Gravel, I do continue to consider Iran a threat, partly because of Iranian support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There was a good deal of condemnation of President Bush's "rush to war," including some accusations that Bush intended to lead America into war with Iran in a way very similar to how he launched the war against Iraq. I thought Joe Biden was Bush's most eloquent critic in the Iowa NPR debate. He stressed that he was not simply opposed to a "rush to war." Rather, he made it clear that he was "advocating no war, no justification for war." Biden hasn't really established himself as an anti-war candidate in my mind; he does, after all, advocate that American troops in reduced numbers remain in Iraq, and he has a history of supporting intervention in other countries. In this debate regarding Iran, however, he seemed to out-Kucinich Dennis Kucinich!

John Edwards attempted to make a big issue out of Hillary Clinton's vote in support of declaring the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. I was a bit surprised when that declaration passed myself, primarily due to terminology...I'm still not used to considering a branch of a nation's military a "terrorist" organization, but considering that armies have surely terrorized many more people throughout history than shadowy organizations like Al-Qaeda have perhaps the designation is more than fair. Edwards' argument that Clinton's vote showed that there was a clear distinction between the Democrats -- that is, between Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates -- did not really hold water with me. Clinton has said she does not advocate war with Iran. She can still believe that the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist organization...those two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Edwards argued that in effect Clinton was giving the president the pretext to go to war, but that argument suggests that in order to inhibit Bush's power it is necessary for Congress to refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist. That's not a very satisfying state of affairs -- surely Bush can still be restrained from going to war without Congress losing its ability to condemn terrorist organizations. It would've required more votes than that cast by Senator Clinton to actually lead America into another war. For Edwards' argument to have been effective, I think the former senator would have needed to argue that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was being mischaracterized -- that is, it was improperly labeled as a terrorist organization for ulterior motives and thus Clinton's vote was cast either because she is in league with President Bush on Iran or because she was too foolish to see through the subterfuge.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The Democrats Take on Iran, China, and Illegal Immigration

All the Democratic presidential candidates except Bill Richardson gathered in Iowa this afternoon for a radio debate broadcast by National Public Radio. This debate was the first radio debate I can remember ever listening to; I think the all-aural limitation of radio as a medium makes for a somewhat different experience for both listeners and candidates. The atmosphere was certainly much more calm and staid than the last couple of Democratic TV debates I've watched; perhaps the debate format, in which candidates were not given strict time limits for their answers and in which only three major topics were addressed, contributed to this atmosphere as well as the medium. The candidates were no doubt more relaxed because they did not have face a live audience; furthermore, the listening audience for a Tuesday afternoon debate on NPR is probably not that large so perhaps the candidates felt less under the microscope today. Unfortunately, the time distribution in this debate was terrible. It was very much a Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards show, a reflection of the tight three-way race in Iowa at the moment. Thus, even though this was Mike Gravel's big comeback debate, I often found myself wondering if he was even present during long stretches of today's debate.

I noticed that Hillary Clinton did something clever early on in this debate that seemed to set the tone for the afternoon. By quoting previous remarks of Obama and Edwards on Iran, she sought to limit their ability to attack her without being particularly aggressive herself. This tactic seemed to work well; this debate wasn't very contentious at all...frankly, it tended a bit more towards "boring." To an extent, I felt like most of the candidates were handicapped by the topics discussed today. No Democrat is running on an Iran, China, and illegal immigration platform -- those aren't what I would really core issues for the Democratic candidates in 2008, but they were topical given the new intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear program, the recent Chinese toy recalls, and the ongoing immigration debate. Apart from the eternal contrarian, Mike Gravel, the Democrats seemed to by-and-large agree on these issues: they urged a more conciliatory and diplomatic approach towards Iran, promised to be tougher on China especially on economic issues, and advocated immigration reform without deportation. This was quite a good slate of issues for Joe Biden, however, who loves discussing foreign policy. He sounded sharp today; this was definitely his kind of debate. Each of the other candidates not named Gravel struggled to distinguish his or her candidacy from the rest of the pack while at the same time largely agreeing with his or her rivals in the actual debate. Dennis Kucinich sought to do this by pointing out his consistency: his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war was adduced as evidence for his commitment to avoiding war elsewhere in the Middle East, and he also pointed out his record of continuing opposition to free trade with China. The rest of the candidates, I thought, were largely unsuccessful at distinguishing themselves from their opposition. After listening to the debate, I did feel like Obama had performed better than Clinton or Edwards, but I think that was a pretty subjective judgment made on the fly that I might very well change if I listened to the debate again or read a transcript.

Over the next few days, I plan to tackle each of the three issues the Democrats debated today in a separate blog post. Opinions and conclusions will be compared. Gravel will be mentioned with alarming regularity. Least importantly, I will write more than two blog posts this month.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The Republican YouTube Debate

To an extent, I feel like some of the impressions I get out of any particular presidential debate are pretty random. Sometimes a great performance or an eloquent phrase does get imprinted in my memory by virtue of its quality, but I often can't really explain why it is I pay more or less attention to a particular candidate or a particular topic in a particular debate. It's like trying to explain why the characters in James Joyce's Ulysses suddenly start thinking in Italian or start reciting enormous lists of random things. I felt my impressions of tonight's Republican YouTube debate were particularly scattered and random, so I will forgo any attempt to declare any candidate a debate winner or loser. I'm happy to share a slightly stream-of-consciousness report on tonight's debate, though.

For some reason, the candidate I found myself thinking about the most tonight was Mitt Romney, a person I've barely mentioned in this blog to this point. In particular, it struck me that though Romney is the candidate most attacked for flipflopping he is essentially running as an uncompromising conservative, someone who is a hardliner with a rigid ideology. The attacks on Romney continued tonight; as usual, his changing stances on abortion and gay marriage were challenged, and John McCain chastised the former Massachusetts governor's tentative handling of the issue of waterboarding. While Romney can look uncomfortable at times when answering certain questions, it takes a lot to actually phase the man for more than 10 or 15 seconds; I certainly didn't think any attacks tonight really put a visible cramp in Romney's style though they certainly may have an impact on how voters perceive him. As experienced as Dodd and Biden and McCain and Paul are, it is Romney who out of all the candidates seems to be the most polished, consummate politician to me. He honestly sounds as convincing expressing a pro-life point of view now as he did expressing a pro-choice point of view in a video clip shown during the debate from years ago. He doesn't really sound like a guy who would change his mind on the issue now, but he didn't sound like he was about to change his mind then either! During the course of the debate, Romney adopted rigid, legalistic positions on several issues that admitted the existence of no gray areas. While Mike Huckabee thought a distinction needed to be made between the children of illegal immigrants who had no choice but to follow their parents into this country and those illegal immigrants who consciously crossed the border of their own volition, Romney refused to acknowledge that a child was any less an illegal immigrant than his or her parents. Similarly, Romney seemed to not even consider the morality of detaining terrorists in Guantanamo when he discussed that issue -- he saw no need to justify a practice that was part of the War on Terror even though it is very much a moral issue to some people. Romney often expresses rather than explains and seems to prefer to be perceived as confident rather than as thoughtful. That really has nothing to do with Romney's particular take on the issues and everything to do with how Romney has chosen to conduct the campaign. Tom Tancredo, for instance, is surely the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration that is running for president, but he has thousands of reasons he feels the way he does and he is eager to make his case wherever and whenever he can.

Fred Thompson, meanwhile, is about as rough a politician as Mitt Romney is smooth. He really didn't come as advertised -- in spite of the acting experience, Thompson doesn't deliver smooth, well-rehearsed lines and a steady supply of sound bites. Instead, he rambles and says "uh" a lot. And he has a good sense of humor. He's pretty...human. Is he Reaganesque? Well, he is an actor and is surprisingly pretty down-to-Earth, but that's about it for the Reagan connection. He just hasn't been the dynamo that some people were expecting him to be; if he does end up winning the Republican nomination, I predict he'll win it slowly and steadily without many fireworks. He seems comfortable with attacking politics, so I think Giuliani and Romney will definitely feel Senator Thompson nipping at their heels at least through the early primary season.

It was John McCain's turn to attack Ron Paul tonight. Paul has received a lot of attention because his policies are so unlike the policies of the other candidates, so it seems only natural that the other candidates should challenge him when he expresses views so unlike their own, and at least one candidate invariably does in each debate. Each time these challenges actually happen, though, it seems to always sound like a mean bully is picking on the idealistic underdog; McCain didn't exactly escape this image by essentially accusing Paul of adhering to the same policies that led to World War II. Sometimes I think politicians should always consider what the reaction to their words would be like if they expressed their thoughts directly. McCain's direct argument would probably have gone like this: "You know that fringe anti-war candidate, Ron Paul? His crazy anti-war rhetoric is going to lead us into a world war like what happened when we ignored Hitler! Only a hawk like me can be trusted to keep us out of big wars by making us fight lots of little ones! A vote for Paul is a vote for WORLD WAR!" McCain's argument may have some merit, but he was definitely picking on the little, albeit growing, guy here and the Arizona senator ended up sounding very speculative. Mean and speculative isn't an election-winning combo, I don't think.

That's all I've got for tonight.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Snipers and Thinkers

The Democratic presidential candidates gathered tonight in Las Vegas for another debate with memories of the year's most contentious debate last month in Philadelphia still fresh in many minds. Although Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have been the media and poll darlings for most of the year, open warfare between the three has erupted only relatively recently. Personally, I've found this trio's squabbles rather grating and tiresome in large part because there seems to be so little that is genuine about any of it. Obama and Edwards are attacking Clinton because she is ahead in the polls; Clinton is counterattacking Obama and Edwards because they threaten to eat into her lead. The genuinely angry man in this race, Mike Gravel, hasn't even been invited to the last couple of Democratic debate; the pale flames of Obama and Edwards' indignation would easily be engulfed by the roaring fire of Gravel's frustrated populism. Much of what we see from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is strategic sniping. The issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good example of this. Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give a value judgment on this issue garnered public criticism from Obama, yet Obama also seemed rather uncomfortable addressing the very same issue in tonight's debate! True, Obama gave a direct answer -- he supports the idea -- but he seemed as frightened to be seen as taking a strong stand on this issue as Hillary Clinton was. To me, this trivialized the whole controversy over Hillary's previous vacillating; the whole thing was an excuse to attack Hillary, not so much about the issue itself which is clearly a difficult one for both candidates. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was able to answer the question unequivocally and thoroughly. In fact, the early Hillary/Barack/John sniping in this debate probably did more to make Bill Richardson and Joe Biden look good than it did to help any of the disputants. By staying out of the fray and sounding disapproving of the political games taking part on the stage, Biden and Richardson played the roles of wise statesmen. Unluckily for them, the debate grew less negative as it continued on, and each member of the main trio had a few good moments. Hillary Clinton, in particular, seemed much more confident and comfortable even when under fire in this debate, a much-needed performance following her weak showing in Philadelphia.

I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Constitution, LEAVE ARNOLD ALONE!

The United States Constitution is explicit about just who is allowed to become a president, a senator, or a representative. The presidency, for instance, can only be held by someone who is 35 years old or older. That's an arbitrary limit, of course -- if a 35 year old can be a good president, then surely a 34 year old could be, too. More important than the number 35 is the implication that someone who is old enough to be a senator or a representative might not be old enough to be president; the presidency is for the experienced. One reason John Cox has failed to get much real recognition from the media (or from this blog, for that matter) as he has pursued the Republican presidential nomination is the fact that he has never held a major political office. He's not taken seriously -- he's not seen as "presidential" -- even though he is old enough to hold the office. Fewer people would so cavalierly dismiss an immigrant candidate for president such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as not being fit for the office, but the Constitution is bold enough to do just that. Article II, Section 1 states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." There is not much wiggle room here at all: presidents have to at least be 35 and they have to be natural born: no youngsters and no immigrants need apply.

Frankly, there is something discriminatory about the restrictions the Constitution places on who can be president. Simply put, all citizens are not allowed the same freedom to seek the highest public offices because of what the Constitution says. Are these limits on individual liberty reasonable and just or arbitrary and discriminatory? It is particularly hard for me to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the immigrant restriction -- that amendment declares that naturalized citizens ARE citizens of the United States. That is, a natural reading of the 14th Amendment suggests to me that there should be no difference between a naturalized citizen who immigrated to the United States from another country and a citizen who was born in the United States. Yet Article II, Section 1 forces naturalized citizens to be "citizens with an asterisk," like other citizens in most every respect except that they cannot become president. This seems a far cry from true equality under the eyes of the law.

The Constitution is not just a work of philosophy, however. It might seem more in keeping with the central themes of the Constitution to allow anyone to run for president, but there is at least one pragmatic reason why it might not be wise to do so. As I mentioned previously, the age restriction encourages the experienced to seek the presidency; these folks aren't necessarily the best-suited to the job, but at least they have records of public service which can be studied and judged. The immigrant restriction, on the other hand, probably is less a signal to people in the United States as it is to people who are outside it: it makes it more difficult for a foreign government to install a puppet as president. This may sound a little ridiculous, but I can imagine something like that happening (it certainly has historical precedent in other nations), especially if the foreign government finds an effective way of funneling funds into the United States in order to support their candidate. It would be difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- to fool the American people, the government, and the media all at once, to be sure, but this scenario is still scary to me even if it is improbable. Additionally, it perhaps would have been easier for a foreign government to install a puppet at certain periods of American history than it would be now; that doesn't mean the Constitution is outmoded since it could be that America will again become more vulnerable to this in the future. My point is that the immigration restriction on who can be president probably has much more to do with domestic security than deliberately enshrined discrimination.

Discriminate it does, however. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a popular and dynamic governor, may well never be able to run for president even though he'd likely be a strong candidate; while personal views on the California governor vary wildly, isn't it a little disheartening to think that we would never even get the chance to consider supporting his candidacy without the Constitution being first amended? It's not as if Arnold is the only immigrant in politics, either; many otherwise exceptional candidates are undoubtedly barred by the Constitution from even seeking the presidency. While the Constitution may be saving the United States from being taken over from within by Austria, it is also denying Americans an opportunity to vote for good candidates. In my opinion, it would be better to combat foreign interference in American politics in other ways rather than make naturalized citizens less than natural born citizens.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Larry Craig's Dilemma

I have no doubt that many politicians take their role of "public servant" very seriously, but at the same time I think even the most idealistic public servant must also recognize that politics is a career not so unlike other professions. It's no coincidence that Chris Dodd and Mitt Romney followed in their fathers' footsteps by becaming politicians; were they not merely continuing the family business as many children do? Certainly politics is a strange sort of business in that it has a penchant for attracting diverse members of other professions; the presidential race is a good example of this for though the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker have yet to enter the race, the doctor, the lawyer(s), the businessman, the soldier, and the preacher are just a few of the current candidates who are currently seeking the presidency. On the other hand, Larry Craig is an example of a politician who has spent most of his life in politics -- he is a career politician if there ever was one. His name has become associated with scandal and hypocrisy, but the senator from Idaho is ignoring all calls for his resignation and attempting to hold on to his political career for dear life...perhaps, in part, because he has no other career to fall back on.

All things considered, I consider the act which has led to Senator Craig's fall from grace to be, if Craig did indeed commit it, a rather slight offense, though shameful for a married man that publically espouses "family values." Accused of soliciting sex in a public bathroom, Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now maintains his innocence and is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in what will likely be a protracted legal fight. The sordid details of the case have captivated the media's imagination, but frankly solicitations that are much more direct and public occur in bars, clubs, and on college campuses every day. It would seem unfair to me to end someone's career for a single offense of that nature, but this is another example of how politics can differ from other professions. There seems to be no rule as to whether a politician can survive a scandal, no matter how mild or horrendous the offense; some, like Ted Kennedy, have thrived post-scandal while others, like Dan Crane, have been essentially forced to give up politics altogether. It has been hinted in some media reports that Craig will not seek reelection, so perhaps he won't even give the public a chance to reevaluate his character and worth as a candidate...but he still faces a dilemma regarding his immediate future in politics. Members of the Republican Party have called for Craig to resign in light of the scandal, ostensibly for the good of the party; Craig, however, has stated that he would like to complete his term and clear his name, despite having previously announced that he intended to resign in September.

Should Senator Craig stay or go? I think the answer to the question depends on whether we think of Craig as a public servant or as a man. Craig the public servant is clearly hampered by the scandal -- he has shocked constituents and angered colleagues. Even if he does somehow prove himself innocent, his willingness to plead guilty falsely and to change his mind both on his plea and resignation is not likely to impress anyone. Can he effectively serve under these circumstances? On the other hand, the remainder of Craig's present term could be his last moment in the public spotlight; it is likely the last gasp of a long career. No wonder he wants to do everything he can to heal a reputation and secure a legacy. While it would be nice for Craig to put the public interest ahead of his personal interests, it's doubtful that Craig's decision will have any major impact on the nation. So I can't fault him too much for acting as he has, because he is first and foremost a human being...it's just that politics happens to be his career, and that makes everything difficult!

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The Modern Militia

"The Militia" is referred to several times in the United States Constitution, but it is rarely mentioned in modern American political discourse. Nonetheless, the citizen armies of the states do continue to exist; the United States Code deems all members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia to be part of the organized militia and all male citizens or intended male citizens who are at least 17 but not yet 45 years of age to be part of the unorganized militia. Thus, I am a member of the militia myself merely by virtue of my American citizenship, my gender, and my age! As a newly realized militiaman, I thought it would be worthwhile to devote a blog post to the concept and role of the militia in the United States.

The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?

I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).

While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.

Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.

Friday, September 28, 2007

The All-American Presidential Forums, Republican Edition

The All-American Republican Presidential Forum was an excellent showcase of what a small debate can offer. It will perhaps be remembered as the most unusual nationally televised debate of this presidential campaign since it failed to attract any of the top Republican candidates, yet in terms of content and the pictures it offered of each participating candidate's entire platform it will likely rank among the best in quality. By forcing each candidate to answer each question, the Forum defied the tired pattern that Republican debates have tended to follow so far. Thus, instead of just hearing Ron Paul rage about Iraq and Tom Tancredo decry illegal immigration we also got to listen to them talk about topics like health care and the justice system. It was a nice change.

Given moderator Tavis Smiley's public suggestion that the missing Republicans were choosing to ignore minority voters by not attending the debate, it was only natural for the candidates who did show up to attempt to show themselves as concerned about minority issues and solicitous of minority votes, but some made more of an effort than others. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in particular seemed to make a point of adopting a conciliatory and concerned tone throughout the debate. On the other hand, Tom Tancredo -- the surprise attendee who had earlier in the week suggested the debate wasn't worth his time because the top tier candidates wouldn't be attending -- tried to downplay the relevance of race to several issues raised in the debate, including the high rate of unemployment amongst black high school graduates which he linked to illegal immigration. Ron Paul seemed to fluctuate between these two approaches; at times he seemed like a pure idealogue, entirely concerned with message and not audience, but he also freely criticized manifestations of racism in the justice system in regards to the drug war and the death penalty. Duncan Hunter played the historian throughout the debate, proudly recounting the Republican Party's history of being a champion of African Americans, but he kept mentions of race to a minimum when discussing issues. In contrast, Alan Keyes mentioned race incessantly and seemed at times to be addressing his answers entirely to the black community, though the content of his message did not differ much from what he says in other venues.

While three of the Republicans at the Forum are commonly considered religious conservatives, the difference between Alan Keyes on one hand and Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback on the other was readily apparent. Keyes attempted to turn the conversation towards "family values" issues at every step of the way, similar to how Tancredo continually linked illegal immigration to other issues. Huckabee and Brownback on the other hand seem to be quite content to talk about other issues in their own context without injecting a family values or religious conservative agenda into everything they say. Keyes' focus on marriage and family as the panacea to cure society's ills makes me wonder if a person like me, who is unmarried and has no children and is not thinking about getting married or having children, even exists in his world. While Huckabee impressed me with his analysis of the justice system and his idea for including photo ID production as part of mobile voter registration and Brownback surprised me with his concept of instituting an optional flat tax in economically depressed areas to stir up growth, Keyes focused his eloquence squarely on promoting a family values agenda. Ultimately, I don't think a one-dimensional candidate is very likely to win a presidential election, but Keyes clearly has a role to play in this campaign: he alone of all the Republicans will inject Christian conservative ideas into debate even when it is not all that convenient to do so, and he will also freely criticize other Republicans for not following his lead.

I never expected to be saying this, but I honestly thought Huckabee and Brownback performed far better than the other candidates. I've praised Huckabee before, but Brownback was something of a revelation to me; he performed about ten times better in this debate than in any previous Republican debate I've seen. The tone those two adopted which I mentioned earlier may have contributed to their performance, as they did seem to be very comfortable with the venue. I think Huckabee is the most well-spoken of the Republican candidates, and it is very difficult to put him in an uncomfortable rhetorical position (this quality is reminiscent to me of former president Bill Clinton), but I have noticed he can also be Clintonesque in the Hillary fashion at times. When he talked about improving employment opportunities for minorities, I really had no idea what he had in mind...that's just too vague, pretty words which fail to hold even a promise of a solution. If Huckabee is planning on a new Works Progress Administration in the inner cities, I think we need to know about that right now! Huckabee I thought also had the worst moment of the debate because he used a question about Darfur as an excuse to start talking about abortion and poverty in America. The idea that Americans have problems at home is a valid reason why America should not focus its resources so much elsewhere, but Darfur is one of the great tragedies of our time and shouldn't be brushed aside because abortion is legal in the United States! I don't support American military intervention in Darfur, either, but hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and there should be recognition of that fact whenever Darfur is discussed.

Ron Paul doggedly put forward his views as he always does, but he seemed a little bit tired in this debate to me. No matter -- Paul has never been the smoothest speaker around, but he will still keep talking about liberty to whoever will listen. As I mentioned previously, this debate was good because it forced candidates like Paul and Tancredo to weigh in on a variety of issues, not just a single "pet" issue. We did see a glimpse of the softer side of Paul here, the Ron Paul who became opposed to the death penalty when he realized innocent people were being convicted and killed...but the glimpse was fleeting. Paul is uncompromising in his support for individual liberty and the free market, and his message doesn't really change from venue to venue. This debate, though, may have shed some light on some of Paul's stances that may not often be heard elsewhere: his dislike of minimum wage laws and his opposition to a national ID card, for instance.

Duncan Hunter is one of the more enigmatic figures in this presidential race. He seems to be the one guy out there who is really enjoying himself and is utterly indifferent to the poll numbers and amount of support he receives. There's a twinkle in his eye as he speaks about defense, military strategy, and the border fence; it is noticeably absent at times when some other topics come up. This was Hunter's strongest debate by far, as he showed a nice sense of humor and a good knowledge of history to go along with his focus on national security and illegal immigration. Alas, he was also the only guy to get challenged by the moderator for not answering a question directly; Hunter is definitely a candidate who has a set of core issues he really cares about and a pile of "other" issues he approaches gingerly at best. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hunter get a cabinet position if the next president is Republican. Personally, I think he should start writing novels about espionage and covert military operations, perhaps set in the Cold War era. I made a feeble joke in my last post about Hunter generating excitement, but I have to admit that line about driving a "humanitarian corridor" across Sudan was kind of exciting, though I don't exactly know what would be involved in that process.

In short, the All-American Republican Presidential Forum was a successful debate even without the top tier Republicans. Brownback and Huckabee distinguished themselves above the rest of the pack, but the other candidates also performed well. Alan Keyes embraced his role as a virulent champion of family values. Ron Paul continued to preach liberty. Tom Tancredo blamed much of the country's ills on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter made us laugh and feel protected. Most importantly, though these guys did pretty much what they always do, we got a deeper glimpse of their entire platform because of the questions which were asked and the time these second tier candidates were allowed to speak. If you missed the debate, you can watch it online, read a transcript, or listen to a podcast by visiting the official web site of the All-American Presidential Forums.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Here Come New Challengers

The race for the Republican presidential nomination has been considerably more volatile than the Democratic race so far. While the withdrawals of Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson temporarily narrowed the field during the summer, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes have recently made their campaigns official, and Newt Gingrich has stated that he, too, will enter the race if he can raise $30 million dollars in three weeks. About all we need now is for Al Gore to enliven the Democratic side of things and we should have a presidential primary season for the ages on our hands. My guess is Gore and Gingrich won't end up as candidates, but I welcome Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes into the race. I'm particularly intrigued at the prospect of watching Keyes in future GOP debates. He is a charismatic firebrand and religious conservative who is not afraid of aggressive politics; I'm very curious to see if he will attack Rudy Giuliani and perhaps Mitt Romney more aggressively than Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have to this point.

The All-American Republican Presidential Forum this week should be a good showcase for Keyes as well as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Although Giuliani, Romney, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and (least forgivably, in my opinion) Fred Thompson will miss the debate that will be broadcast both on PBS and online, the second-tier candidates will have the stage to themselves on Thursday, September 27th, at 8 PM CST. While it is disappointing that all the top-tier candidates are skipping this debate considering that the Democratic version of this event was so well-attended, I am interested to see how this group of candidates takes advantage of the opportunity a small debate offers each of them. Perhaps even Duncan Hunter will generate some excitement! Stranger things have happened...I think.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Iraqi Self-Determination

The question as to whether the United States Army in Iraq is an invading force or a liberating force is as controversial today as it was in 2003. Although Saddam Hussein has been consigned to the pages of history and a new government has been established in Baghdad, American troops still patrol Iraqi streets and deserts, killing and dying on a daily basis. Personally, I do still think of the United States as a liberating force -- at least, I want it to be a liberating force. However, I cannot deny that the United States has acted in some ways like an invading power. It is the role of the conqueror to tell the enslaved province what military and political goals must be achieved there, yet the United States has adopted such a role by setting benchmarks for a foreign government to achieve. When the United States government adopts the position of telling the Iraqi government what to do, American policy is actually hindering Iraq's journey to self-determination. To an extent, I think that the United States should sit back and let the Iraqi people and Iraqi government choose their own future. The American military's true role should be to oppose those forces within Iraq that are themselves fighting against Iraqi self-determination: terrorists, Iranian sympathizers, Baathists, and more! It should fulfill this role in partnership with the Iraqi government and on an as-needed basis rather than by increasing its numbers and dominance in a way that only makes the Iraqi government seem like nothing more than a puppet. It has taken me a while to come to this conclusion; long time readers of this blog may remember my support for the Biden-Gelb plan. In some ways, it remains an eminently sensible plan, but its critical flaw is that it seeks to impose an American vision for Iraq on Iraq -- although the United States may really know best under these circumstances, this is not an example of self-determination by any stretch of the imagination and it is certainly not conducive to the creation of a democracy.

Of course, the reasons which compel the United States to remain in Iraq are numerous and complex and are certainly not limited to delivering self-determination and democracy to the Iraqi people. Indeed, it is self-interest which primarily motivated the invasion and continues to primarily motivate the surge. There is a danger, thus, in giving Iraqis the freedom to determine their fate because they could undermine much of what the United States has done in Iraq. Mike Gravel has already said that he thinks American troops are dying in vain in Iraq as in Vietnam; it would be quite hard to argue with this statement if Iraqi self-determination brings another anti-American strongman or terrorists or a militant theocratic government into power. However, there is also a strong chance that Iraqis will continue to choose freedom if they are given the chance. I think we should try to avoid letting our fears about what might happen in Iraq cloud our view of the Iraqi people who are as deserving of free choice and liberty as any other people on the face of the Earth. Although the surge might be as effective in the long run as Bush and McCain think, the same goals could also be achieved by the Iraqi people themselves and require far fewer American lives in the process.

An immediate US withdrawal from Iraq would be another way to attempt to give Iraqis self-determination, and this policy has the wonderful advantage of bringing an end to American military deaths in Iraq. The problem with withdrawal is that no one really knows what will happen afterwards. If Iran invades or Iraq becomes a terrorist state, does the United States intervene once again? If not, will the political situation thus created be far worse than the political situation that existed when Saddam Hussein was in power? Of course, there is also the possibility that Iraq will become a vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East of its own volition, and I expect a battle-tested Iraqi democracy led by hardened freedom fighters would be far stronger than any that could be created by American power. Without the United States' direct influence to support the cause of Iraqi self-determination, however, I fear that anti-democratic forces in Iraq will strongly have the upper hand.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Quote the Reagan Nevermore

Every Republican presidential debate I've watched thus far has included several references to Ronald Reagan. President Reagan seems to be one thing absolutely all the Republican candidates can agree on: they admire, emulate, and want to be favorably compared to him. The steady deluge of Reagan references is not simply about the candidates wishing to voice their admiration of a former president, though; surely the Republicans are trying to send a message to the voters as well. In fact, I think they are trying to send several messages to the American public. First and foremost, each of the Republican candidates would like to appear the most "Reaganesque" simply because Ronald Reagan has remained a relatively beloved and admired president; there are plenty of Reagan voters that will be also voting in 2008, so it serves the candidates well to court those voters. Secondly, I think some people do think the Cold War and the War on Terror are similar in their unconventionality; to me, they seem like pretty different beasts considering the Cold War was essentially a conflict between governments and the War on Terror is anything but that, yet I do understand why Republican candidates would like to appear to be as capable of leading America through an unconventional war as Reagan was. Thirdly, this is the first presidential campaign which began after Reagan's death, so this is the first time politicians have had free rein to reference Ronald Reagan at will. They certainly have taken advantage of that opportunity, to the point of gratuity in my opinion.

Although the repetition of the Reagan name is tiresome, I think there are other reasons why Ronald Reagan should perhaps not be referenced by candidates as much as he has been so far this year. Speaking personally, I don't really remember Ronald Reagan; I lived my first six years with him as the president, but the first George Bush is the first person I recognized as being the president. Assuming that the people with the most vivid memories of the Reagan years were at least aged 12 during the 1980 election, people who are younger than 39 are going to be much less personally attached to Ronald Reagan. They know Reagan from studying history and politics and listening to older people, but that's not quite the same thing as being aware of the Reagan presidency as it was happening. So, for some young people at least the frequent mentions of Ronald Reagan will alienate them from the campaigns. That's not so terrible, necessarily; young people are notorious non-voters. However, I think the Reagan references may also alienate older people as well due to the passage of time. A lot has happened since the Reagan years. Two decades cannot be wiped away in a flash; memories of September 11th trouble more Americans right now than memories of the Cold War do in spite of the anxiety and terror caused by the latter. When people like Giuliani, McCain, Hunter, Huckabee, Brownback, and Romney invoke the name of Reagan, I often wonder if they wouldn't rather be bringing up the man whose policies they agree so much with: George W. Bush. It seems like President Bush's unpopularity in the moment has forced the candidates to seize the Reagan mantle when the Bush mantle would better fit their shoulders. That leads me to my final point: if Reagan could be mentioned when it is appropriate and not simply name-dropped at random moments, the political discourse in this country would become a little bit more truthful and sophisticated automatically. Truthful politicians should speak of Bush when they mean Bush and Reagan when they mean Reagan.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

New Hampshire Republican Debate -- Mike Huckabee vs Ron Paul?

The most interesting thing about the September 5th Republican debate on the campus of the University of New Hampshire to me was that the first tier candidates seemed to be essentially overshadowed by two of the second tier candidates. Whether this is indicative of a changing of the guard is debatable, but I'm convinced that the Republican nomination is very much up for grabs now. The two candidates who won yesterday's debate are, in my opinion, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee has performed well at all the debates, but what he has needed all along is for his charisma and his eloquence to be utilized in support of some overarching message or platform. Huckabee seems to have found his platform now: honor. Why should America remain in Iraq? According to Huckabee, the surge should continue because it is the right and honorable thing to do. Huckabee's personal honor -- essentially, his steadfast adherence to what he believes to be right -- is what will enable him to make strong decisions in moments of crisis (a nuclear standoff with Iran, for instance). Although Huckabee is a Christian minister and his political positions are strongly influenced by his religion, the former governor from Arkansas has a knack for framing issues in such a way that his message can appeal to everyone, and he is relatively cautious about bringing religion directly into politics. While Huckabee appeals to Americans' sense of honor, Ron Paul stirs their intellect. When Paul mentioned Mossadegh in a previous debate, I knew he was a bit unusual; to speak of a foreign historical figure most American voters will never have heard of takes a bit of bravery. He continues to be unusual...he is the one candidate who seems to always approach voters as intellectual equals, no matter whether he is discussing strange policy changes, the true legacy of the Reagan administration, or the rise of the neoconservatives. He is the theoretician par excellence in this political race; his biggest weakness, of course, is that so many of his theories are untested in reality. He was forceful and eloquent in the New Hampshire debate, and the flatness of the other candidates besides Huckabee made his performance seem all the more impressive.

The debate's most memorable exchange was surely the exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul over the Iraq issue. Huckabee, as I mentioned earlier, posited the issue as a matter of honor, and he linked the honor of America as a nation to the personal honor of all Americans. Paul, as usual, appealed to the intellect: supporting failed policy for the sake of "saving face" is foolishness. Huckabee is perhaps the most eloquent defender of the surge I have ever heard, but I do think Paul got the better of this exchange ultimately. The emotional power of Huckabee's argument rested too much on a single word, "honor"; Paul took all the mysticism out of the word by linking it to the phrase "saving face," a truly trivial reason for conducting military operations. However, if Paul did indeed score a victory here, his margin of victory was slight. Paul greatly weakened his argument for withdrawal by his unwillingness to even address the issue of what might happen in Iraq if American troops pull out of the country. I can accept that those who predict doom and gloom for Iraq in the case of an American withdrawal could very well be wrong given their prior track record, but I do expect to hear an alternative vision from anyone who is asking me to reject the other predictions. What Paul didn't say spoke volumes.

While Paul and Huckabee stole the show, the frontrunners stumbled. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were both put in extremely uncomfortable situations by questioning viewers. One audience member wondered aloud whether Giuliani's personal life could be reconciled with the "family values" dear to the hearts of many social conservatives. Another questioner severely chided Romney for the governor's comparison of his sons' helping him with his campaign with military service. Romney had already apologized for the statement, so I was surprised that he looked as uncomfortable as he did when confronted with it again. Perhaps he was wondering to himself, "Is that going to haunt me for the rest of this campaign?" I guess it very well could, and perhaps Romney was right in that case to acknowledge the greatness of military sacrifice without unduly castigating himself for his flippant statement. Those who did not hear Romney's original apologies may well be angered more that Romney seemed so eager to brush aside that criticism, however, so I think Romney would've been better served if he had delivered a more heartfelt apology. The question posed to Giuliani was far more difficult, and Rudy seemed to realize that there was no way he could deliver a perfect answer to it. Giuliani acknowledged that he was not a "perfect man" and essentially declared himself not to be a "family values" candidate per se; he presented his campaign as based on issues like crime, terrorism, and taxes instead. I think Romney will become more comfortable speaking about his misstatement in the future, but I wonder very much if Giuliani will be able to avoid being labeled as the serially monogamous candidate who openly rejects family values. Indeed, I'm starting to wonder if the bottom could fall out of the Giuliani campaign soon. He has become far too repetitive and mechanical in answering debate questions; I know I've already grown very tired of hearing about Giuliani's escapades as the mayor of New York City. To trumpet one's record is fine to a point, but this approach taken together with Giuliani's desire to keep his private life outside of discussion makes the Giuliani campaign seem increasingly inhuman and impersonal. The Paul and Huckabee campaigns seem to be where the vitality and human interest are at the moment.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Should the Donations of Lobbyists Be Shunned?

Hillary Clinton has been quite bold in defending her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. She has flatly stated that campaign contributions do not influence her political stances, but at the same time she also believes that lobbyists have a right to make those contributions regardless of their intentions. Ultimately, campaign finance issues are really all about trust: are elected officials trustworthy enough to treat all contributions as donations rather than bribes, even when they know their behavior in office will influence the future contributions they receive? Is it better for politicians to reject contributions from those with ulterior motives in order to avoid the appearance of evil or for them to attempt to establish their honesty in some other way?

Fundamental to this issue is the nature of the privately financed American political campaign. While politicians need votes to assume office, they often just as desperately require money, for it is money that is the fuel that will power their campaigns from start to finish. Hillary Clinton's point of view is pragmatic: since politics costs money, let politicians accept contributions from various sources but not allow themselves to be influenced by the donors of that money. I don't think it requires a superhuman set of ethics to be a politician that acts that way, but because money is so vital a part of the political process temptations will always be around to entice politicians great and small. To remove lobbyists from the political money race could remove the number of those temptations...but campaign coffers will be significantly less full as a result.

Another question relevant to this discussion is whether or not lobbyists play a worthwhile role in politics. Hillary Clinton, who says that lobbyists sometimes do represent the views of a significant number of "ordinary Americans," is probably closer to the truth than is John Edwards, who seems to view lobbyists as coming from another planet (OK, maybe just another America). The Lobbying Spending Database shows that huge companies like General Electric as well as organizations like AARP spend significant amounts of money on lobbying. There really is a wide variety in the interests which lobbyists represent; the ordinary Americans that Edwards champions are represented to an extent by lobbyists. On the other hand, lobbying also provides a way for wealthy individuals and corporations to attempt to use their wealth to influence politics in ways that may not be beneficial for the country as a whole.

Personally, if I were running for office I probably would accept contributions from lobbyists. To me, that would be part of running a fiscally responsible campaign; of course, ignoring their attempts to influence policy would be part of being a responsible representative. I would have to live with the consequences of this decision: namely, people might trust me less because they would assume me to be beholden to special interests. All things considered, I certainly can't fault Edwards for taking the moral high ground on this issue; he obviously feels that he can afford to campaign without lobbyist aid. However, I also won't automatically distrust a candidate who accepts lobbyist contributions simply because I know politics is expensive. This whole debate makes me ponder the wisdom of having publicly financed campaigns; they would be a government money pit, but excessive campaign spending might be tempered and more honesty in politics might be encouraged as a result.

Monday, August 27, 2007

The Office of Vice President

Over the course of my lifetime, the prestige of the office of vice president has increased considerably. The first VP I can remember is Dan Quayle, one of the most ridiculed men in politics of his era. In retrospect, most of Quayle's gaffes seem relatively slight; misspelling "potato" seems positively wholesome compared to some of the actions other politicians of note have gotten into trouble for in recent years. Still, Quayle was a weak vice president who clearly played second fiddle to his president, George H. W. Bush. At the other extreme stands Dick Cheney, who has been a serious political force in Washington through two terms as vice president. Indeed, some consider him to be in practice even more powerful than the president, a claim which I will leave to the historians to investigate.

Which of our living models for vice president, Quayle or Cheney, actually fits the office better? The Constitution allots relatively little power to the position, which is necessary primarily to ensure that the void in the power structure created by the president's death or incapacitation can be quickly filled. An acting vice president's most important duty is to serve as President of the Senate, but it seems to be relatively unusual for the vice president to actually attend Senate meetings unless a vote is expected to be very close and perhaps might require the vice president's tie-breaking vote. Given that the vice president needs to be in a position to assume the presidency at any time, I think it is unwise for any vice president to take on any extra duties of importance for those duties may have to be pushed aside at any moment. Thus, it makes sense to me that the office of vice president should be of rather limited importance in and of itself. While some may justly argue about whether Quayle was ever fit to be president (and that is the most vital qualification for any vice president), I nonetheless think he was a "better" vice president than Cheney is simply because Quayle fulfilled his role without usurping presidential power or prestige. Cheney is more useful to the president than Quayle was, perhaps, but the power vacuum created by the death of either Cheney or George W. Bush might be quite considerable.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Where Does Tancredo Stand?

Niche marketing can be effective in politics as well as business. Tom Tancredo is perhaps the best of the niche marketers currently running for president. The large group of Americans who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration has not exactly been courted assiduously by either the Democratic or the Republican parties. Tancredo has taken advantage of this neglect by making opposition to illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. It is the one issue he talks about constantly, and he frequently attempts to link other issues, such as the high cost of health care and homeland security, to the illegal immigration issue. Indeed, Tancredo has focused on illegal immigration to the extent that anyone who does not share his views on that issue would probably be very reluctant to vote for him. However, even those whose views do mesh with Tancredo's must wonder about the Colorado Congressman's other political stances. Discovering just what those are is not necessarily a simple process.

For all second-tier candidates like Tancredo, having a strong Internet presence is vital. Tancredo is definitely online, but I think he could take better advantage of the opportunities the Internet provides him to get his message out there. His campaign web site's On The Issues page summarizes his points of view on various topics and provides some links to text, audio, and video related to those topics. Unfortunately, these links do not do a good job of covering issues in depth. I don't quite know what to think about a candidate who links to a two sentence PDF file on an issue like abortion; is that really all he has to say? That said, Tancredo does have some strengths as a candidate which his web site and his online videos do demonstrate. His conservatism on abortion, gun control, and government spending matches the beliefs of the base of the Republican Party. Tancredo, however, has also shown a willingness to buck the party line on other issues: he wants to reduce troop numbers in Iraq by changing the military mission there, and he has opposed No Child Left Behind from the start. Of course, his stance on illegal immigration is also an example of his willingness to take on the big names of his party. There is a lot of popular support for nearly all of Tancredo's stances, so theoretically he ought to be able to win votes both among stalwart Republicans and disaffected conservatives.

That doesn't necessarily mean Tancredo's campaign will be going anywhere anytime soon. He has two major problems as I see it. Firstly, his presentation of his campaign hasn't been great. He has established himself as the anti-illegal immigration candidate, but has looked like a demagogue in the process. Whenever a politician uses all his time in the public eye to speak about one issue it creates doubts as to whether the politician has anything else to offer. Tancredo has often looked to me almost bored when speaking about issues other than illegal immigration. Secondly, Tancredo's virulence in discussing the immigration issue has made him susceptible to accusations of being xenophobic, and, given America's long history of welcoming immigrants, even anti-American. Actually, America has a long history of opposing as well as welcoming immigration, so I definitely consider Tancredo to be as American as any other candidate running for president. However, I cannot brush aside the xenophobia argument quite so easily; I've not made my mind up on that score just yet. One thing I have made up my mind about is this: Tancredo could continue to make noise in the primaries, but he needs to become more effective in promulgating his views on issues other than illegal immigration to be taken seriously by the country at large.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Office-hopping and the Ineligibility Clause

Section 6 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution restricts the ability of members of Congress to hold other government posts. This clause, sometimes unofficially called the ineligibility clause or the emoluments clause, accomplishes at least two worthy goals. Perhaps most importantly it prevents senators and representatives from seeking to draw multiple salaries for holding multiple offices; greed would likely encourage many members of Congress to spread themselves too thin and would undoubtedly make all government appointments more contentious affairs (for instance, it might be hard for a worthy presidential appointee to be approved by members of Congress if those members happened to all be hungry to hold the office in question themselves!). Because a member of Congress who also holds other government offices would wield great influence, the clause also limits the power a Congressman can wield at a given time.

Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution effectively discourages office-hopping. Just as people climb the corporate ladder by changing positions, so too do politicians move from office to office, a process that in practice makes a mockery of the concept of terms of office. I've written previously about my concern about whether members of Congress and governors can do their jobs properly and run for president at the same time. While John McCain or Hillary Clinton would not be able to be both a senator and a president at the same time, nothing prevents them from running for president while still in office. In a particularly egregious violation of the spirit of the Constitution, Joe Lieberman in 2000 sought the offices of vice president of the United States and senator of Connecticut simultaneously, though he could not hold both simultaneously. In my opinion, members of Congress should have to fulfill their terms of office or resign their offices before running for another federal office. An expanded ineligibility clause could encourage more members of Congress to concentrate on their present jobs before seeking higher offices and, once these Congressmen had either filled out their terms or resigned, they would be able to devote themselves entirely to the important process of running for higher office. While this might encourage more Fred Thompson-like "shadow campaigning" as potential candidates attempted to gauge whether or not they should resign their present offices, I think in the long run this would lead to better representation in Congress for the citizens of the United States as well as more focused presidential campaigning.

Friday, August 17, 2007

The Popular Election of Senators

The framers of United States Constitution were so concerned over the prospect of one entity, be it a person or branch of government or some other group, becoming too powerful that they sought to employ checks and balances on power wherever it was convenient. Contrary to Lincoln's vision of a government being "of the people, by the people, for the people," the founders thought that the people needed to be kept from gaining too much power just like any other group. One way the power of the people was to be balanced was through the creation of two houses of Congress that were to be different not only in composition and powers but also in how they were to be selected. The House of Representatives was to be the people's body and so representatives were to be popularly elected. Senators, however, were to be elected by the vote of their state legislatures. In practice, this organization of the legislative branch may have done what the founders intended, but combative, inexpedient legislatures and corrupt senators continually called into question the wisdom of having state legislatures elect the Senate. In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified; it stripped the power of electing senators from the hands of the legislatures and gifted it to the people. Whether or not this was a good idea is still widely debated today.

My personal philosophy on this issue is influenced both by the Lincoln ideal of government and by the founders' distrust for all potential abusers of power. Certainly, it is true that a tyranny of the majority is just as capable of oppressing individuals as a tyranny of one, so the individual does need to be protected from the majority just as it is protected from the state itself. However, I don't think protecting the individual from the majority should result in the majority being silenced for the sake of the individual. Ultimately, the legislatures which were to elect senators were themselves chosen by the people; why is it that legislators, once enshrined in office, may be trusted to choose better senators than the voting public would themselves? Are not the state legislators men and women like other men and women rather than a part of some elite group of people who were born to rule? I tend to think that the Lincoln definition of government fits popularly elected bodies like Congress and state legislatures as well as executive offices like president, governor, and mayor very well -- members of Congress and mayors are alike in that they represent and serve the people. However, not all government officials are beholden to the people. The judiciary follows another authority: the law. It is the law which is best able to protect the individual from whatsoever threatens his or her rights, given vigorous enforcement. To me, it makes sense to have a Senate that is elected and a Supreme Court that is appointed, because it is much easier for the people to decide if a candidate is fit to represent them than it is for them to decide if a candidate will uphold the law. Even so, Supreme Court appointments have become extremely politicized; this is perhaps because the president and the Senate are not particularly well suited to the job of selection, either.

Opponents of the 17th Amendment often prefer the older system of selecting senators not on the basis of checking and balancing the power of the people, but instead on the basis of either senatorial freedom or states' rights. I don't disagree with those who claim that a senator who does not face a popular election will be more free to legislate in the manner that he or she thinks best, but I'm not sure a representative of the people should feel free to act independently of the will of the populace at all times. A senator of conscience will vote his or her conscience when it matters regardless of how that senator came to be a senator; in terms of everyday matters, though, I think senators should defer to the will of the people if their conscience and political philosophy does not lead them strongly in one way or the other. As for the states' right issue, it might seem as if letting the people of a state directly elect their senators in no way jeopardizes the position of that state with relation to the federal government. However, states' rights are often concerned with the interplay of state governments with the federal government; if senators are chosen by the state legislatures, this means that state governments have direct influence on the federal government. Is giving state governments more influence worth locking the people out of the process of electing senators, though? At this point, I'd say no.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

One Man, Two Votes

One of the disturbing facts about the coming election year is that the primary season is going to be very scrunched together, with state after state holding primaries and caucuses in quick succession. In practical terms, this means that the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be known fairly quickly and the general election will begin for all intents and purposes quite early. Even if the season was not scrunched together, there would still be criticism as there always is about the early primaries exerting too much influence on the outcome of the nomination process. It is surely in the country's best interest to have a primary season that lasts long enough for the American people to get to know the candidates. Spreading out the primaries and caucuses more is something that is needed, but I have another idea which also might help make the nomination process interesting right up until the conventions. This idea was inspired by George Washington and the men who elected him, so you know it's going to be good!

The first few American presidential elections were ultimately determined as presidential elections are determined today: by the votes of a small number of people who served as electors. These electors had two votes which had to be cast for two different candidates. The Twelfth Amendment made it so that these two votes were distinct from one another, one being cast for a presidential candidate and the other for a vice-presidential candidate. In the elections of 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800, there was no distinction between the two votes of the electors; the chosen vice president was simply the candidate who received the largest number of electoral votes after the president. In practice, this system caused some difficulties, particularly to Thomas Jefferson who ended serving as vice president to a president of a very different political persuasion and then nearly lost the presidency to the man who was supposed to be (and ultimately was) his own vice president. Does this mean two votes are one too many? With all sympathy to Thomas Jefferson, I think the answer to that question may well be no -- perhaps, instead, this is an American political tradition that should be revived to help fix America's primary problem. (Talk about a confusing use of the word "primary" -- I apologize, but I do not edit.)

Suppose, for instance, that primary voters were required to cast two votes of equal value for two different candidates instead of one. This would certainly make landslide primary victories difficult to obtain since for every vote cast for one candidate there would be another cast against that candidate. It would also encourage voters to give more than one candidate a chance; some, undoubtedly, would exercise their democratic right to throw their second vote away by casting it for an unlikely candidate, but surely some others, if not the majority of voters, would choose to vote for the two candidates they like the best. There are some downsides to this idea, as well, but I don't think they are particularly serious. For one thing, this idea would make it possible for a popular second-choice candidate to defeat several more popular first-choice candidates. Chris Dodd is not many people's first choice for president right now, but a lot of people like him; in a two-vote system, a Chris Dodd could win a primary just by being the second choice of a lot of Hillary and Obama voters. Is the victory of a candidate many people like but most people do not like a lot a triumph for democracy? Another unfortunate aspect to this might be the dimming of enthusiasm people feel for their particular candidate of choice; I don't think this impact would be huge, but I would expect to see more people divide their energy, time, and contributions between at least two candidates that they like through the primaries.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Iowa Straw Poll Thoughts

The Iowans who voted in today's straw poll in Ames generally rewarded those who invested the most time and energy into courting their votes. Mitt Romney, the candidate who spent the most money courting (and sometimes transporting) Iowa voters, won the poll comfortably as expected. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, two candidates who have made Iowa one of the major focuses of their campaigns, finished second and third in the race. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain performed dismally following their decision to not actively compete in Iowa: Giuliani finished eighth and McCain tenth. Tommy Thompson was the one candidate whose performance did not match his effort level; despite campaigning in every county in Iowa, Thompson finished in the disappointing sixth position. Thompson probably handicapped his own chances by announcing that he would drop out of the race if he did not finish first or second in the poll; it appears that the former Wisconsin governor's presidential campaign is coming to an end.

Two of the big stories surrounding the events in Ames did not have anything to do with a particular candidate. First, the voter turnout was smaller than some had expected. Frankly, it was smaller than some had hoped; the Iowa straw poll is a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party, so the more people who pay to vote in it the more money the local Republicans will rake in. It is also common practice for campaigns to foot the cash for their supporters. Given that Romney has been the predicted victor for weeks now and his was the only campaign with significant cash to pour in to Iowa, it's not surprising that people were reluctant to fork over their cash to participate in a political event that seemed increasingly lacking in influence. Secondly, the results of the poll were delayed due to some technical problems; evidently, one of the voting machines used at the event malfunctioned, forcing a recount of some of the votes. That certainly is not a promising sign for next year's election!

At least two candidates performed significantly better than they were expected to. Tom Tancredo finished a very strong fourth, winning 13.7% of the vote. This is huge for his campaign -- take him off the list of people expected to drop out of the race very soon. Ron Paul finished 5th, showing that he can perform decently even in what is considered to be a very traditional state. I think many of the votes for Tancredo were protest votes cast by those upset about illegal immigration. It will be interesting to see if the leading Republicans try to take a harder stance on illegal immigration in the coming months to win these voters over to their camps.

The Iowa straw poll should give more candidates hope than it does despair. I don't think we're going to see as great a weeding out of the lower-tier candidates as some were expecting. Yes, Tommy Thompson is out. Duncan Hunter performed very badly (finishing 9th...even Giuliani beat him!), but I'm not sure this event was a huge deal to him -- he is probably the next most likely guy to drop out, but he might just stay in a little longer, too. The other Republican candidates (apart from the 41 vote wonder John Cox) have no reason to drop out now; this is a time to savor their victories over Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson and attempt to carry the momentum they've picked up in Iowa elsewhere. Most significantly, I think the straw poll was a big statement on the part of Christian conservatives. Huckabee and Brownback were finally given the support from their base that they've struggled to win thus far and I expect their campaigns will continue to pick up steam at least until Fred Thompson finally enters the race officially. If the second Thompson bombs like the first one, then Huckabee and/or Brownback could become top-tier candidates.

Tommy Thompson's Plan: Peace Through Prosperity

Tommy Thompson barely registers on most presidential polls, but he has an underrated plan for Iraq which is refreshing for its moderation and sensibility. The initial step of this plan is the most controversial, as Thompson wants the Iraqi Parliament to vote on whether or not American troops should remain in their country. Iraq's Parliament is no pillar of strength, but nonetheless its approval would provide a slight mandate for future American military efforts in Iraq. Something I think both Americans and Iraqis tend to forget is that at this point in time US forces are not an occupying force -- given the theoretically friendly relationships between the American and Iraqi governments, American forces remain in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. I'm sure Thompson expects the Parliament to overwhelmingly support the continued stay of American troops, but if that does not happen the United States would have an excellent opportunity to withdraw from Iraq and, indeed, we would be morally compelled to do so lest our forces once again become an occupying force. Too many Iraq plans out there seem to ignore the Iraqi people who ultimately will decide the fate of their country; some of these plans seem to treat the Iraqis like schooolchildren who need the protection of the United States against the neighborhood bullies because they are incapable of standing up for themselves while others frankly show a lack of concern for what happens to Iraq once the United States has left the country. Thompson's plan at least makes an effort to take into account the voice of the Iraqi people. Thompson's other unique idea is to split Iraq's oil revenue in three ways, with the federal government, provincial governments, and individual Iraqis each receiving an equal share. According to Thompson, such a system will give each Iraqi a stake in the future of his or her country...but to what extent will it reduce the violence? It's hard to say. I think poverty is an enabling factor, but it is not really the root of the conflict in Iraq. Religious differences and historical rivalries will surely continue to exist even in prosperous times, and there is little a foreign power can do to address those issues. What the United States can do is seek to get the oil flowing again and profits rolling back into Iraq; it won't solve any problems immediately, but perhaps it will improve the quality of life for the average Iraqi and that will have an indirect impact on the stability of Iraq.

The Biden-Gelb plan has a couple of advantages over the Thompson plan: it is both more detailed and more practical. I've yet to hear Thompson speak about troop numbers like Biden has; indeed, I'm quite unclear as to how Thompson actually intends to use the military to achieve his goals. Biden's plan to reduce the violence is essentially the voluntary segregation of the Iraqi people which, while not an appealing idea, at least might get the feuding factions out of each other's faces for a while. Thompson, on the other hand, talks about Iraq in terms of the 18 provinces that already exist in the country, and he tends to lump these provinces as being either Kurd, Sunni, or Shia based on their population, but the province system hasn't discouraged violence thus far. Nonetheless, the Thompson plan is not a bad one, and I would be very curious to see its effect if put into practice.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Regulating Marriage

There has been much debate over the ages over the role government should play in the lives of its citizens. Aristotle did not have any qualms about legislators deciding such issues as whether a couple should be allowed to marry or whether a child with deformities should be allowed to live; indeed, in Book VII of "Politics" he advises legislators on how they should make these decisions. Government remains involved in the lives of the people from cradle to grave today, but in America at least the government it is not quite as involved in the marriage-making as Aristotle envisioned. Indeed, Americans have relatively large degree of freedom to marry whosoever they choose despite variations in marriage-related state laws, but there is also a school of thought which espouses the idea that government should have a larger role than it already has regarding the institution of marriage.

Like Aristotle who was interested in regulating marriage so that only men and women who would be likely to have children together could be united in wedlock, American supporters of increased regulation on marriage also have tended to support these restrictions for moral and cultural reasons. Laws against interracial marriage were once exceedingly common, for instance, and reflected the prevailing mores of a racist society. There are still numerous laws on the books which forbid polygamy and marriages between relatives. Now, of course, the most controversial marriage issue is the question of whether or not homosexual marriage should be legal. Those who believe homosexuals should be able to legally be married often present the issue as a civil rights matter -- homosexuals are being denied equal treatment under the law despite the fact that their homosexuality does not transgress the law...in most jurisdictions, at least! Those on the other side of the debate often argue that because the concept of a marriage being between a man and woman is so firmly ingrained in American culture that the legal definition of marriage should be made to match the cultural definition in order for the law to reflect the viewpoints of the majority of Americans. As with most controversial issues, both sides are to an extent right. Clearly, homosexual couples are being discriminated against when they are not allowed to marry while similar heterosexual couples are allowed to marry -- whether there is a "right" to be married is very doubtful, but obviously a homosexual couple is not equivalent to a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law which is supposed to look on all Americans as having been created equal. On the other hand, American laws often do reflect public opinion and widespread moral values; laws against homosexual marriage reduce rather than protect the rights of citizens, but many other laws do exactly the same thing. Personally, this is an issue where I err on the side of liberty. I can totally understand why a person's religious beliefs, moral values, and cultural inheritance might make that person opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, but the fact remains that homosexuals do exist in this country and many of them want to be able to be married like other Americans can be. That is an utterly reasonable desire. The more America bends to forces which wish to limit American liberties the more I fear that these forces will try to bend our laws in other ways. Aristotle was a brilliant man, but he seems to have seen nothing wrong with forbidding the infertile or the aged to marry. Who knows what marriage restrictions will be put in place by the brilliant people of our tomorrow?

Of course, if we take the liberty argument to its logical extreme, there will be virtually no restrictions on marriage left at all. Honestly, I tend to think the laws forbidding relative marriages and polygamy are good in practice, because such marriages have great potential to be used to screen the crimes of child and spousal abuse. The net effect of such laws is thus positive, I might argue...but it is probably true that most marriages between relatives and most polygamous marriages would not entail any more abuse than the typical heterosexual marriage would, and it undoubtedly true that heterosexual marriage is itself also often used as a screen to hide abuse. It is thus extremely hard to argue that my feeling that some marriage restrictions help prevent abuse and thus make society better despite limiting the rights of the individual is valid yet the similar feelings of those who wish to ban homosexual marriage are invalid. This debate will have to continue for another day.

Book link: Aristotle's Politics