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

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Should Two Parties Be Enough For Anyone?

Many American political parties exist, at least in name, but only the Democratic and Republican parties field candidates that regularly win high offices. In contrast, more than a dozen political parties are quite active participants in Israeli elections. This big contrast is largely due to the vast differences between the political systems in Israel and in the United States, but nonetheless I still wonder why it is that the American voting public seems to meekly accept that they only have two options while Israeli voters seem to, if the sudden and frequent emergence of new parties and alliances is any indication, continually clamor for more and more choices. There are at least three factors at work here: the weakness of America's would-be "third parties," the chameleon-like nature of the two major parties, and a political climate that is unfriendly to new and emerging parties.

The history of American political parties is a fascinating one which I am still learning, but most minor parties seem to fall into one of two categories. Some parties are or were dominated by a very charismatic leader and have been unable to emerge out of the shadow of that leader. For example, George Wallace was able to move the American Independent Party into prominence in the 1960s, but after the Alabama firebrand returned to the Democratic Party the AIP's popularity dwindled. Nonetheless, the party still exists some forty years after its glory days, primarily as an affiliate of the Constitution Party. The other group of parties has been severely handicapped by vicious infighting. The Reform Party is a recent example of one such party: after a promising start, it quickly became apparent that the party base was not quite broad-minded enough to provide a political home for Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Pat Buchanan, and Lenora Fulani all at the same time. Both the American Independent Party and the Reform Party were the leading fringe parties in American politics for a time, but neither remained political forces for long in large part due to their internal weaknesses.

The Republican and Democratic parties each have their own platforms, but over the years these parties have shifted positions on various issues many times and incorporated many diverse viewpoints into their organizations. Thus, it happened that the party of abolition was the Republican Party and the party of the "Solid South" during the Jim Crow era was the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party in the 20th century became the major party most closely associated with the Civil Rights Movement while the Republican Party became the new home of some former segregationists like Strom Thurmond. The Democratic Party largely absorbed the Populist Party just as it was emerging as a force to be reckoned with in American politics in the 1890s, while the Republican Party has more recently welcomed neoconservatives and Christian conservatives into its ranks with open arms. As a general rule, both Republicans and Democrats seem to tend to run more to the right in conservative areas and more to the left in liberal areas. Thus, there are pro-choice Republicans who run for office in New York City and California like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger and also pro-life Democrats like Gene Taylor and Ben Nelson who campaign in Mississippi and Nebraska. The very fact that the Democratic and Republican parties don't adopt very many stances on issues which they hold to solidly and consistently has been key to both their longevity and their nationwide appeal. Since both Democrats and Republicans fiercely resist being pushed into an ideological corner, it is that much harder for a fringe party to present a platform to the American people that is both unique and appealing.

Ultimately, the biggest reason there are only two major political parties in the United States is because those two parties already have the resources needed to compete in races big and small and across the nation, and those resources are substantial. Small parties have to start from the ground up and face resistance at every turn. Their key to growth is winning votes, but it is hard for them to win votes without money and hard for them to raise money without already having votes. The most visible of offices is the Presidency, but few third-party presidential candidates can even manage to get on the ballots of all fifty states. The political climate in the United States makes it extremely difficult for a minor party to ever emerge out of obscurity, so it is hardly a surprise that the few parties that avoid internal chaos and whose messages are not co-opted by the major parties still find it almost impossible to make a dent in the American political scene.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Bellicose Presidential Candidates Gone Wild!

In a time of war and apprehension, it is natural that presidential candidates should seek to impress upon the public the idea that they will be leaders who will keep the country safe. Since a good offense can sometimes beat a good, bad, or mediocre defense, it also makes sense that some candidates should promise safety through uncompromising aggression against America's enemies. In the past week, though, it seems like several candidates have gone off the deep end in their attempts to present themselves as being "tough on terror."

Exhibit A: Barack Obama has threatened to use the military option to go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without the support of Pakistan's government. He has also threatened to cut off aid to Pakistan if the Pakistanis do not provide better assistance against al-Qaeda in their country. Obviously, it is very disappointing that Pakistan likely is where some of the al-Qaeda leadership is hanging out and that there seems to be nothing that can be done about the situation because the central government of Pakistan simply does not exert enough control in Waziristan and other tribal areas to launch an extensive manhunt in those areas. Obama's frustration is understandable. However, even if we suppose that the United States can take out al-Qaeda in Pakistan, perhaps even Osama bin Laden finally, I suspect that using the military option would ultimately lead to bad outcomes for all. It's never a good thing to prop up weak governments with foreign aid as the United States has a long history of doing, but this process makes sense in Pakistan, where a change in government could easily lead to terrorists or those sympathetic to terrorists controlling a nuclear nation. A foreign invasion, even if only very specific targets were attacked by the United States, would weaken an already weak government further. It would certainly be counter-productive to destroy one group of terrorists while at the same time helping another set of terrorists rise to power.

Exhibit B: Tom Tancredo has stated multiple times that he believes a proper response to a major terrorist attack against America would be to nuke Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. This is tantamount to a declaration of war on Islam as an entity -- instead of a war on terror, we would have a war on a religion practiced by a billion people worldwide. Indeed, there are many Muslims who are American citizens and have made or plan to make the required pilgrimage to the holy cities of their religion; Tancredo wants to represent these people, and all American citizens, but he is willing to use Americans' holy places as political pawns because the faith of many Americans is also the primary faith of terrorists. The nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina is something that could never be forgotten in our lifetimes; it would create ill-will against the United States that would last as long as Islam endures as a faith. It would surely create terrorism for generations rather than squelch it; just the threat alone may spark more terrorism because it suggests America is as against Islam as terrorist propaganda claims. Perhaps Tancredo is right to think that the threat of nuclear attack could dissuade terrorists just as it can deter aggressive nations, but the trouble is terrorists can act in small groups or even as individuals even more easily than they can as members of large networks like al-Qaeda -- all it would take is one determined, small group of people or, perhaps, just one person to make America either reveal its threat to be empty or bring about a nuclear nightmare.

Exhibit C: Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton wants to have the option to use nuclear weapons against terrorists wherever they may be. Clinton's tactic of the moment is to present Obama as inexperienced and clueless when it comes to foreign policy, so she is hoping people will believe Obama has violated some golden rule of foreign policy which declares that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table because it makes a good deterrent. Deterrence is good, but is it really unacceptable in foreign policy to be honest and to try not to appear to be a lunatic? In practice, using nuclear weapons on terrorists would simultaneously kill ten or a hundred terrorists as well as thousands of citizens of some country we are not at war with. Obviously, the war situation could change, especially in nuclear Pakistan, but if one is just considering the state of the world as it is I think it is quite reasonable to say that a nuclear strike on terrorists is not immanent. The most effective deterrent is surely the threat of a military action that might actually be engaged upon; threatening monstrous actions is only effective if we are monsters.

All three examples I've mentioned have a common thread: each candidate has essentially threatened military action against an ally. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have perhaps not been the greatest allies America has ever had, but it is a fact that the United States is not at war with either nation. I am disturbed at the notion that because terrorists do not belong to any nation the sovereignty of nations can be violated at will if terrorists happen to be residing in those nations. Terrorists are lawless, but nations have a responsibility to abide by their agreements and treaties. Yes, abiding by treaties may make fighting terrorism more difficult, but not abiding by treaties makes it more difficult to maintain friendly relationships and trading partnerships with other nations. The path that might lead to more dead terrorists in the short run could very well also lead to global instability and war in the long run.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

The Fair Tax

Opposing the income tax is a proud tradition in America, but I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "good" tax. That is, taxes generally lead to unpleasant outcomes of some kind and tend to make some unlucky individual lives much worse. We have taxes because the alternative to having them seems worse for society as a whole, but the direct effects of taxation are never pleasant for anyone. If we consider all the types of taxes that have ever been levied on the citizenry of the world by good and bad governments, I don't think the progressive income tax is the worst of the lot. However, I'd be very reluctant to call the American system of taxation in its present form the best because I refuse to believe there is no alternative to having a tax code that is so complex and confusing that it causes anguish to millions of individuals and creates an industry devoted to finding loopholes intended to subvert its progressive nature. Much good could come from reforming the present tax system, but some convincingly argue that a fundamental change in the way taxation works would actually be the best thing to do given what they consider to be the inherent flaws of the current system.

Perhaps the most sophisticated and widely supported alternative tax plan is the "Fair Tax." Individuals as diverse as Mike Gravel and Mike Huckabee (notice the obvious pattern there, even if their politics are very different!) have publicly voiced their support for a national, progressive sales tax which is basically what the Fair Tax claims to be. Traditionally, most sales taxes are not considered to be progressive because they are thought to heavily impact the poor whose budgets can least manage to absorb higher prices for goods and services. The Fair Tax attempts to avoid being regressive by offering prebates to all Americans; these are monthly payments designed to cover the sales tax costs on basic necessities. In effect, no one who signs up for the prebate will end up paying any net tax on basic necessities, though the necessities will still be subject to the national sales tax like other goods and services.

The Fair Tax has two features that seem particularly appealing when compared to other systems of taxation. First and foremost, the Fair Tax gives individuals much greater choice in determining how much tax they pay because it taxes consumption rather than income. The vicissitudes of life naturally encourage people to continually seek to augment their incomes, so the progressive income tax and the capital gains tax end up punishing people who are striving to put their kids through college or retire with financial security; the Fair Tax would not interfere with personal financial goals like this because savings and investments would not be taxed. The extent that people have the freedom to consciously consume less depends on their income, but there is an important and intentional "loophole" in the Fair Tax system which makes taxation slightly more voluntary: the sale of used goods would not be taxed, including used homes. Thus, if you ever want to escape paying taxes on something, you'd need only buy it used and you would not pay any at all. Not everything can be bought used, of course, and this is part of the reason why I don't think the Fair Tax is truly a progressive tax although it is certainly not as regressive as a straight sales tax. Secondly, the Fair Tax would in the blink of an eye end the IRS as we know it and do away with complicated yearly tax forms for individual consumers. This would constitute a major reduction in both government expenses and citizen anguish.

The Fair Tax is far from perfect, however. If taxing income discourages work and saving, taxing consumption ought to discourage spending which is also not "good" for an economy. Advocates for the Fair Tax argue that the hidden costs created by the current tax system are reflected in the actual prices of goods and services today; thus, they argue that the elimination of these hidden costs would more than offset the effect of the new sales tax. I'm skeptical that the hidden costs are more than the sales tax price effect, but this is nonetheless a good counter-argument which has at least some validity. Perhaps a more damning argument against the Fair Tax is that it is too harsh on those in difficult circumstances. An income tax will only demand a portion of the income a person has earned recently, but a sales tax will tax whatever money happens to be spent by a person whether or not that money is savings or recently earned income. Thus, someone in desperate straits who is forced to dip into his or her savings to handle emergency spending will be taxed just the same as someone spending at the same rate but earning a healthy yearly income. Again, it could be argued that this person will in fact suffer no less under the present system due to the hidden costs of the income tax, but it is no credit to the Fair Tax that it fails to rectify the errors of our present system, and even the smallest across-the-board increase in price would be tough for some people to absorb. Another thing I'm concerned about is the ability of the Fair Tax to fund the government. Unfortunately, both individual consumption and government spending are unpredictable; understandably, then, there is much disagreement concerning what the rate of the Fair Tax would have to be to meet the government's spending requirements. A Fair Tax that is high would certainly not be fair in practice, and would certainly encourage the growth of black markets for goods and services.

Ultimately, I cannot say that the Fair Tax is worse than the current system of taxation; rather, I think the former is actually better overall in theory. However, the present system has the significant advantage of being a known quantity. If consumption is affected too much by the Fair Tax, then the result of its enactment will be insufficient government revenue and an economic downturn, so it's hard for me to just trust the predicted numbers that some economists have come up with without researching their methodologies. If you, too, want to do some research, there is a fantastic web site (http://www.fairtax.org) put out by the Americans For Fair Taxation that has a tremendous amount of information on the Fair Tax. That web page -- and Mike Gravel -- inspired this post, and I suspect it will inspire me to write a couple more in the future.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Fred Thompson, Popular Man of Mystery

I had never heard of Fred Thompson before his potential candidacy became a big story. As it turns out, I actually have seen Fred act, but I didn't recognize his name and face initially. Since Thompson having emerged as one of the GOP frontrunners even without officially announcing that he would be running for president, I wonder to what extent my experience is shared by those who have become early Fred Thompson supporters. The notion that Thompson owes much of his support to rabid Law & Order fans seems farfetched, although Fred obviously does have excellent name and face recognition among that group of people. My pet theory is that Thompson, with much help from the media, has become the living equivalent of a "None of the Above" vote. Some Republican voters are clearly deeply dissatisfied with their current set of candidates, so their support for Thompson, an unannounced candidate, is both a vote of protest and hope.

When Thompson officially becomes a candidate, he will probably lose some of the edge he currently has on his rivals. Those who like Fred in theory may well not like him so much in practice. Those who now consider him to be the Ultimate Conservative may wonder just why they flocked to him rather than Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee a few months down the road. It'll surely be interesting to see Thompson's substance as a candidate once the buzz around him has exhausted itself. It is probably a shrewd move on the part of the Thompson camp to delay an official announcement and prolong that buzz. Additionally, I'm afraid we may soon lose two or more Republican candidates in the aftermath of the Iowa Straw Poll later this month, so when Thompson emerges as an official candidate the Republican field may be considerably smaller. Then again, who knows for sure that Thompson won't deliver the ultimate buzz-killer on his own volition by announcing that he has decided not to run?