John F. Kennedy's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country" is etched permanently in my memory, but it is not etched upon my heart. The quote seems to imply that the government and the people are very separate entities and the one must choose to serve the other. This is realistic enough, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of a government by, of, and for the people. Government should be a representation of the will of the people -- if the government is my representative, why does it want me to do things for it that I wouldn't normally want to do?
John Edwards has established himself as a strong anti-war presidential candidate, but he has also recently declared his support for mandatory national service. Edwards doesn't necessarily have mass military conscription in mind, but essentially he wants the government to force Americans to serve their country and he expects Americans to be delighted to have that "opportunity." What is so silly about this is that every day people do have the opportunity to volunteer their time, labor, and money to help others. The armed forces actively recruit patriots to fight for their country. Edwards won't be providing "opportunities" -- he'll simply be forcing people to serve. Should patriotism be obligatory? I don't think so. In a free country, people should be free to choose their work in life; they should not be forced to labor, even if that labor will be of great benefit to all other Americans. Mandatory national service naturally brings with it problems independent of philosophical concerns. Not only will a portion of those working be unmotivated because they did not want to serve, but people may be placed in jobs they are really not suited to be doing, causing inefficiency. I have confidence in the American military to a great extent because it is a volunteer force; it is a military not of bakers and poets but of professional warriors. Edwards gets a huge thumbs-down from me for supporting this restriction of the liberty of American citizens.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Slaves and Freemen
As part of my continuing effort to become more politically educated, I've started reading a classical classic: Aristotle's "Politics." A political issue important in Aristotle's time that is perhaps not so important in the United States in the year 2007 is slavery. Aristotle argues that some are born to rule and some are born to be ruled; were it otherwise, society could not function. I don't agree, but reading Aristotle's matter-of-fact discussion on the necessity of slavery has inspired me to start thinking about the gulf between the ruling and the ruled that still exists.
American senators, representatives, and presidents are theoretically just citizens who happen to meet a few minor requirements for office. That's only part of the story, though -- these men and women in power are, generally speaking, elected into office. They are chosen by other citizens, by their peers. Are these elected elite "born to rule" and the voters who supported them "born to serve?" There is a tradition of direct democracy that exists in American politics, but referendums, initiatives, and recalls are not the typical way political changes are effected. The voters are seemingly content to let others -- whoever happens to decide to run for office and is popular enough to be elected -- make decisions for them. Is this mere laziness? Are Americans just unwilling to put the effort into learning enough to make wise decisions for the entire country or is the nation really better off if it is led by an elected elite? The elite are not necessarily well-qualified to lead their nation, no more than a Greek slaveholder was necessarily virtuous enough to treat his slaves like human beings, so it is hard to be completely satisfied with the present way of doing things. However, as much I like the idea of the educated masses guiding the destiny of their own country, I cannot help but remember how difficult it was for me to merely get to the point of wanting to become an educated voter. As a member of the masses, I can authoritatively say for myself that I am not ready to lead, and my observations of other people suggest to me that there are others likewise not ready and others quite unwilling to lead. So, the elected elite do seem to be necessary, if for no other reason than that no one but them really wants the responsibility of leading.
Book link: Aristotle's Politics
American senators, representatives, and presidents are theoretically just citizens who happen to meet a few minor requirements for office. That's only part of the story, though -- these men and women in power are, generally speaking, elected into office. They are chosen by other citizens, by their peers. Are these elected elite "born to rule" and the voters who supported them "born to serve?" There is a tradition of direct democracy that exists in American politics, but referendums, initiatives, and recalls are not the typical way political changes are effected. The voters are seemingly content to let others -- whoever happens to decide to run for office and is popular enough to be elected -- make decisions for them. Is this mere laziness? Are Americans just unwilling to put the effort into learning enough to make wise decisions for the entire country or is the nation really better off if it is led by an elected elite? The elite are not necessarily well-qualified to lead their nation, no more than a Greek slaveholder was necessarily virtuous enough to treat his slaves like human beings, so it is hard to be completely satisfied with the present way of doing things. However, as much I like the idea of the educated masses guiding the destiny of their own country, I cannot help but remember how difficult it was for me to merely get to the point of wanting to become an educated voter. As a member of the masses, I can authoritatively say for myself that I am not ready to lead, and my observations of other people suggest to me that there are others likewise not ready and others quite unwilling to lead. So, the elected elite do seem to be necessary, if for no other reason than that no one but them really wants the responsibility of leading.
Book link: Aristotle's Politics
Friday, May 25, 2007
Giuliani's Interesting Mix
It's no coincidence that I decided this was the year I should start learning about politics. A presidential election is upcoming and as such there is a plethora of different political views being expressed by presidential hopefuls at the moment. Time will narrow the number of candidates and hence the number of viewpoints expressed, so for me this year is almost as interesting as next year will be. This brings me to the subject of this post: Rudolph Giuliani, a different kind of Republican.
Giuliani is widely criticized by conservatives for being "socially liberal." In particular, Giuliani's pro-choice stand is unacceptable for many conservative voters. Although the war and terrorism have changed the United States, abortion remains the most important issue for at least some Americans. The interesting thing about Giuliani to me is that he blends conservative and liberal views pretty well. He seems like a candidate who, although he will alienate some members of his own party, will be very able to attract some voters nominally attached to the other party as well as independents. Giuliani tries to come across as a tough guy, the crusading mayor of New York who cut crime and was a pillar of strength in the crisis of September 11. But Giuliani is, notwithstanding his indignation at a recent debate for being called soft, a "compassionate conservative" in other respects. He has a mayoral record of cutting taxes yet also increasing funding for education; he cut government spending and supported gun control. Giuliani's platform, thus, is not cookie-cutter and has the potential to appeal to voters who are also unique.
In practice, however, Giuliani hasn't really been running as a liberal/conservative "fusion" candidate. He at times seems like a demagogue who is running on only one issue: terrorism. His recent attempt to villify Ron Paul was effective in the heat of the debate, but I wonder if Giuliani can really effectively combat terrorism if he truly believes terrorists act mindlessly. From my perspective, the 9/11 terrorists were evil, but I don't consider them all to have been insane. They had reasons for doing what they did -- reasons that don't resonate with me, but which were so compelling to them that it led them to kill and to die. If a change in American foreign policy would make those reasons less compelling to other would-be terrorists, I'd certainly hope a president would at least consider making that change. Would-be terrorists could be would-be businessmen or would-be farmers in other circumstances; they might remain evil people no matter what walk of life they choose to follow, but perhaps as businessmen or farmers they would cause less suffering. When Ron Paul, another very "unique" candidate, chastises Giuliani for a lack of foreign policy knowledge it seems well deserved. Giuliani remains an interesting candidate, however, and I hope he will be brave enough to campaign strongly on a wide range of issues. A debate with Ron Paul could also be really interesting -- although Giuliani would be giving a fringe candidate some prestige, Rudy could also demonstrate that he does have a sound reason for believing as he does and is not the foreign policy ignoramus Paul has painted him to be.
Giuliani is widely criticized by conservatives for being "socially liberal." In particular, Giuliani's pro-choice stand is unacceptable for many conservative voters. Although the war and terrorism have changed the United States, abortion remains the most important issue for at least some Americans. The interesting thing about Giuliani to me is that he blends conservative and liberal views pretty well. He seems like a candidate who, although he will alienate some members of his own party, will be very able to attract some voters nominally attached to the other party as well as independents. Giuliani tries to come across as a tough guy, the crusading mayor of New York who cut crime and was a pillar of strength in the crisis of September 11. But Giuliani is, notwithstanding his indignation at a recent debate for being called soft, a "compassionate conservative" in other respects. He has a mayoral record of cutting taxes yet also increasing funding for education; he cut government spending and supported gun control. Giuliani's platform, thus, is not cookie-cutter and has the potential to appeal to voters who are also unique.
In practice, however, Giuliani hasn't really been running as a liberal/conservative "fusion" candidate. He at times seems like a demagogue who is running on only one issue: terrorism. His recent attempt to villify Ron Paul was effective in the heat of the debate, but I wonder if Giuliani can really effectively combat terrorism if he truly believes terrorists act mindlessly. From my perspective, the 9/11 terrorists were evil, but I don't consider them all to have been insane. They had reasons for doing what they did -- reasons that don't resonate with me, but which were so compelling to them that it led them to kill and to die. If a change in American foreign policy would make those reasons less compelling to other would-be terrorists, I'd certainly hope a president would at least consider making that change. Would-be terrorists could be would-be businessmen or would-be farmers in other circumstances; they might remain evil people no matter what walk of life they choose to follow, but perhaps as businessmen or farmers they would cause less suffering. When Ron Paul, another very "unique" candidate, chastises Giuliani for a lack of foreign policy knowledge it seems well deserved. Giuliani remains an interesting candidate, however, and I hope he will be brave enough to campaign strongly on a wide range of issues. A debate with Ron Paul could also be really interesting -- although Giuliani would be giving a fringe candidate some prestige, Rudy could also demonstrate that he does have a sound reason for believing as he does and is not the foreign policy ignoramus Paul has painted him to be.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Learning Politics -- A Beginning
Politics has never been a major part of my life. I can vaguely recall being enthralled with the 1992 presidential election as a 9-year old (Paul Tsongas and then Ross Perot were my candidates), but by the time I was actually old enough to vote I couldn't even say who my own state representative was. I had other things on my mind -- isn't everyone apathetic about something? It just so happens that I was apathetic towards something that affected myself, my nation, and the world quite directly. Maybe I should feel ashamed or regretful, but I don't really. I do, however, want to change because I have decided politics is something that is worthy of my time.
The problem is I have a lot to learn. There are countless burning issues I don't have a strong opinion about. I certainly don't have any party affiliation. I've never voted in my life. I somehow wormed out of participating even in the innocuous elections at my college that named some lucky (???) girl "Junior Maid" and appointed others to scarcely more important offices. So, just how does one go about "learning politics" at age 24?
For one more semester, I can officially call myself a university student. I will unofficially be a student for the rest of my life. It seems natural to me to study politics just as I would study anything else. I will accumulate information, listen to diverse viewpoints, and think about both. I want to approach politics from two ends: it is simultaneously an academic subject pioneered by such brilliant individuals as Aristotle and Montesquieu centuries ago and a living reality, the force that regulates life in so-called "civilized" societies and the arena in which the Clintons and the Bushes have found glory and infamy. I'll look at politics in its sublime and seedy aspects; I'll seek it in the corners of books and streets alike. This blog will document my journey and perhaps resonate with those who are likewise seeking knowledge.
The problem is I have a lot to learn. There are countless burning issues I don't have a strong opinion about. I certainly don't have any party affiliation. I've never voted in my life. I somehow wormed out of participating even in the innocuous elections at my college that named some lucky (???) girl "Junior Maid" and appointed others to scarcely more important offices. So, just how does one go about "learning politics" at age 24?
For one more semester, I can officially call myself a university student. I will unofficially be a student for the rest of my life. It seems natural to me to study politics just as I would study anything else. I will accumulate information, listen to diverse viewpoints, and think about both. I want to approach politics from two ends: it is simultaneously an academic subject pioneered by such brilliant individuals as Aristotle and Montesquieu centuries ago and a living reality, the force that regulates life in so-called "civilized" societies and the arena in which the Clintons and the Bushes have found glory and infamy. I'll look at politics in its sublime and seedy aspects; I'll seek it in the corners of books and streets alike. This blog will document my journey and perhaps resonate with those who are likewise seeking knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)