Islam in Europe, a Test of Religious Toleration

When I think of religious intolerance in the present day, the first countries that pop in my mind are authoritarian ones like China. While Europe's disdain for certain forms of Christianity spurred on many to seek new lives in the New World, that's now the distant past -- the wars for toleration have already been fought and won, the peace treaties signed with the blood of countless Protestants and Catholics. Nonetheless, Europe's hard-won tolerance is being sorely tested at the moment as largely secular and Christian Europeans struggle to coexist with increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants.

How big of a struggle this is was revealed in Switzerland recently where a referendum passed banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Bear in mind that the minaret is essentially an architectural feature common to mosques -- it is distinctive, but about as innocuous an aspect of Islam (if it should really even be called that...the column is not an expression of the worship of Zeus or Jupiter) as there can be. If minarets are ban-worthy, would the referendum have yielded different results if it were Islam itself being evaluated? Undoubtedly the result was influenced by low voter turnout -- the people most passionate about the minarets, which hardly even exist in Switzerland, were those most opposed to Islam. Yet this is not just a Swiss thing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly stated that the burka, an all-encompassing article of clothing commonly worn by Muslim women, is not welcome in France. Once again, read between the lines: is it the clothing itself that is unwelcome or is it the religion that inspires the wearing of the clothing that is under siege? Sarkozy's statement has no legal teeth at the moment, but the gauntlet has been dropped -- the extent to which Islam can be publicly practiced in France is likely up to politicians to decide.

Now, if you listen to what the supporters of the restriction of Islam say, they'll deny everything. "No, no, no, it really IS about the veils and the minarets. It's about culture and women's rights. Nothing to do with Islam, that great religion." However, if the version of Islam you follow does require the burka, any law against the burka effectively means you cannot practice your religion. I firmly believe it is not the state's responsibility to interpret religion -- for instance, the government of France cannot say what is or is not a part of Islam. To say the veil is not part of Islam is essentially to take a side in a long running religious argument over the extent to which the hadiths, or attributed sayings of Muhammad compiled by various chroniclers, should be regarded as religiously binding. Some Muslims think the hadiths are of dubious origin and the Q'uran alone is the Islamic scripture...most, however, embrace both together to some extent. If Islam is truly to be tolerated, then the state cannot tell each Muslim what to believe and how to practice his or her religion. The burka and minaret happen to have something else in common besides a connection to Islam: they are both very visible. To ban them is to wipe away the external trappings of Islam, to make it an invisible religion...it is little but a way for Europe to try to forget its large immigrant populations. The veil itself has little to do with women's rights -- many religions require some external sign of belief and in some Islamic sects men also wear veils. On the other hand, aspects of Islam which are effectively impossible to ban, like the belief that women should not be allowed to associate with unrelated men (sometimes even teachers, doctors, and police officers) and should not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim really do restrict the lives of women in ways I don't think are acceptable. My disagreements with Islam on women's rights and other issues are simply why I am not a Muslim, though -- I certainly don't think I or anyone else has the right to let such religious disagreements lead me to interfere with how other people live their lives. The state can and should protect women who face harassment or worse because they have abandoned Islam or otherwise violated the cultural norms of their community as it would protect any abused or threatened person; however, it cannot and should not prevent women from holding beliefs that may not be shared by the bulk of society. One irony of the European situation is that many Muslims in Europe have already voluntarily abandoned the aspects of Islam that are least compatible with western traditions. Even so, they are treated like second-class citizens!

What is so wrong about Switzerland's minaret ban and the rhetoric coming out of France is that there is nothing wrong with minarets or veils and no reason to consider banning them...the only reason the issue of banning has been raised is because minarets and veils are associated with Islam. If, for instance, there were something inherently troubling about minarets and veils then they could have been banned before the influx of Muslim immigrants even started so those immigrants would have known what to expect. Religious tolerance doesn't mean "anything goes" -- followers of Thuggee can't murder with impunity just because their faith tells them to do so. Banning harmless religious practices, though, is simply a way of banning a form of religion indirectly. Besides that, it even infringes on the rights of non-Muslims: what if you want to wear a burka or build a minaret just for the heck of it (or because you're making a movie set in an Islamic country)? Free countries shouldn't have irrational restrictions like that.

I think it is fair to say that Europeans aren't necessarily intolerant by nature. Hating something because you feel it has no right to exist is somewhat different from fearing something because you feel it threatens your right to exist. Many Europeans are concerned about maintaining their national and religious identities and view influxes of immigrants as a threat to that. I don't think that point of view should be condemned out of hand, though you can certainly argue that immigrants can become good, patriotic citizens and that no nation is "pure." The fundamental reason immigration is such a hot issue around the world, though, is that immigration policies typically have little to do with public sentiment. Governments by their nature always want larger populations. They struggle mightily to cut back on spending in response to declining populations and declining revenues. Immigration is a convenient way to keep populations growing and most countries are well aware of that...Japan is one of the few remaining industrialized countries to literally restrict immigration out of principle despite a declining population. Still, it would be far more moral to have restrictive immigration policies than to infringe on the religious rights of immigrants once they have arrived in and settled down in a new country. It simply isn't fair to open up the borders of your country, let people in from all over the world, and then say, "Relinquish your beliefs and identities and mold yourselves in our images!" The Swiss and the French should really be fighting for control of their countries' immigration policies, not attacking the freedoms of their fellow citizens.

Although the United States' Muslim population is relatively small, I expect immigration will continue to be a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic throughout my lifetime. The same issues Europeans often have with Muslims native-born Americans often have with Hispanic immigrants. You hear the same arguments about culture and ways of life and the threat unbridled immigration poses...but less about religion because most Hispanics are Catholic, just like many native citizens. As more Muslims do immigrate to the US, I expect the religious arguments will crop up increasingly as well, despite the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. Many in America also feel that they don't have control over their country's immigration policies -- you can argue to an extent that the USA is a special case as a "nation of immigrants" but there have always been restrictions on immigration here, some blatantly racist, and there have always been political forces opposed to immigration. Although I'm personally proud of the United States' past embrace of immigrants from all corners of the globe, I do wonder if at some point we won't decide that we pretty much have enough people here already. The prospect of more space and less competition for resources is inherently tempting, even though settling for that form of utopia means that the Nikola Teslas and Werner von Brauns of the future will no longer come to our shores. If we do go down that route, however, I hope we can do it without punishing the immigrants who are already here and without making a mockery of a constitution that protects the basic rights of all citizens. Europe's solution may well turn out to be our own...I hope it turns out to be a reasonable one.

Jesse Ventura on the Draft

Jesse Ventura, former Reform Party governor of Minnesota, has returned to the public eye as the host of the new TV show, "Conspiracy Theory." It looks like it's going to be a pretty good series -- I saw the first episode -- and I would encourage anyone interested in recent conspiracy theories to give it a look. Ventura isn't quite the skeptic you'd think someone hosting a nationwide TV program would be so the show is pretty much mainstream America's first chance to hear conspiracy theories sympathetically presented. I'd prefer a more balanced presentation personally, but at least it's not the type of "These people are NUTS and DANGEROUS!" tripe you normally hear in media channels other than the Internet (where, bizarrely, everyone seems to believe in one conspiracy theory or another). The next episode is about 9/11 and I suspect will ruin any chance Ventura has to win political office in the future...well before the "teabaggers" earned the mockery of the political elite the 9/11 "truthers" were showered with ridicule. Ventura is definitely wary of the official version of the events of September 11th, 2001.

One side effect of Ventura's salvo into broadcasting is that he's been doing a lot of interviews and talking about a lot of different things. I think he knows that he is one of America's most colorful political figures and I think he also realizes that the reason some people are going to tune into "Conspiracy Theory" is purely because of him. What better way to promote a controversial show than to stir up some political controversy? Ventura's controversial issue of choice at the moment seems to be the military draft. As a former Navy SEAL and previous supporter of an all-volunteer military, Ventura is an unlikely advocate for a return to the draft. Nonetheless, the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced the governor that regular Americans are too disconnected from the military effort. The solution, in his view, is to make sure more people have skin in the game by force via the draft. He even wants the burden to fall particularly hard on senators and representatives, who he thinks should have to name a person in their family to be eligible for immediate military service. Leave it to Jesse to make conscription even less ethical...he actually wants to allow members of Congress the ability to ship off their undesirable family members to war! "Cousin Johnny has caused nothing but problems for this family since the day he was born! One way ticket to Afghanistan, please."

I've heard Ventura's basic argument many times before, and I remain unconvinced of its merits. I think a lot of people, especially those who lived through the 60s and 70s, are angry that the American public isn't more upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars effectively ended Republican control of the government in my view, but it is true that Democratic control hasn't exactly brought an end to the fighting as voters have often picked more moderate Democrats over strongly anti-war ones. Certainly the level of protests against the war have never equaled what happened during the Vietnam War. There are two reasons why I feel the comparison to Vietnam is fatally flawed, however. For one thing, more than 58,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam -- roughly 5,000 (less than 10% of the Vietnam tally) have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there are more people living in the United States today than there were during the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have also affected fewer families (in terms of casualties...of course military families always suffer during wars even if their loved ones aren't killed in battle) as a percentage of the total population. Even if there were a draft going on today, I'd have expected there to be a much greater reaction to the Vietnam War than to Bush's wars simply due to the sheer numbers of casualties involved. My second beef with Ventura's argument is that it strongly implies that the draft makes waging war more difficult. Why, then, did conscription not prevent the Vietnam War to begin with? Why did it last so long despite all the protests? Why did hyper-aggressive dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler use conscription to fill the ranks of their enormous armies? Something doesn't add up here.

The morality of conscription is something Jesse Ventura barely touches on. I think that's because he's a political realist who thinks the government is in practice essentially permitted to do anything it wants...the only way to stop the government from doing something it wants to do is through popular resistance. Thus, Ventura thinks that doing something that on the surface seems to reduce an individual's freedom (allowing the government to force people into the military at will) can actually lead to more freedom down the line because of the resulting pushback and resistance. That's antithetical to the idea that there should be a limited government that is, like the citizenry themselves, itself constrained by laws. Personally, I don't want the government to violate an individual's rights even if that's popular at the time. Rather than reinstate the draft, it should be made illegal!

With all that said, I do think Governor Ventura has a point about the public's seemingly growing disinterest in the wars. There are still American soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan -- what right do we have to forget about the dangers they are facing just because we've got massive unemployment and other economic problems at home? Forgetting a war is never wise...wars have ways of forcing your attention towards them no matter how many other problems exist. People also seem to have forgotten the startlingly high numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unintentional as those deaths may be, they nonetheless call into question the very idea of a "virtuous" and "justified" war.

Sarah Palin's Political Future

Sarah Palin has proven to be one of the most mercurial of political figures of our day. She burst on the national scene as John McCain's surprise vice presidential pick and proceeded to make numerous friends as well as foes with her brand of conservative populism. A series of political gaffes brought a lot of media attention to her -- perhaps more than was really warranted for a VP pick -- but ultimately I don't think she can be blamed for her ticket's general election failure. The 2008 election was more about Barack Obama and George W. Bush than John McCain...I think any Republican would have had an uphill battle trying to win over a Bush-weary electorate while facing such a skilled campaigner as President Obama. In 2008, I saw no reason Sarah Palin couldn't build on her newfound popularity and be a serious political contender in the future despite her loss. In 2009, I've started to doubt that possibility.

I remember how people accused Fred Thompson of being too lazy to become president in 2008. He didn't like campaigning or doing all the little things that win campaigns, political wonks said. They may well have been right about Fred -- his presidential campaign didn't really get off the ground. He actually seemed to do better before he started running! I suspect Sarah Palin is in the same mold. The fact that she was caught off-guard in interviews seemed to suggest a lack of preparation which at the time I chalked up to nervousness and inexperience. Her decision to resign as Alaska's governor this year, though, is hard to defend politically. You can be a governor and a national figure at the same time -- heck, Mrs. Palin was Alaska's governor WHILE running for vice president! The way she just left office abruptly without serving out her term makes me seriously doubt how much Palin really enjoys the process of governing. Any political heat she felt in Alaska as governor would pale in (no pun intended) comparison to what she'd get in Washington as president. By resigning as governor, she made me wonder about her willingness to stay the course and deal with the nitty gritty of national politics. In fact, I thought at the time she might be quitting politics altogether. However, she's quickly written a new book, Going Rogue, which is largely about the campaign and is currently hitting the news circuit pretty hard. Maybe she's just trying to make her voice heard and make some money at the same time, but my guess is a 2012 Palin presidential run is still quite possible.

Can she win the Republican nomination if she does run? I do think she remains personally popular, and I actually think a voter who likes a politician personally is going to be a more loyal voter for a candidate than one who votes on ideological grounds. For example, the people who voted for Barack Obama because they liked who he was as a man most probably still like him; those who voted for him because he supported universal health care without individual mandates or thought he would rapidly bring the troops home are probably feeling more disenchanted at the moment. I think Palin's going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already like her, though. She'll need to work hard and do a lot of preparatory work no matter how against her nature that is -- she'll have to anticipate and plan how to deal with tough questions like, "Since you quit as governor, how do we know you won't quit as president, too?" I definitely wouldn't want to be her going into the campaign, but perhaps she can make things easier for herself by what she does outside of politics over the next couple of years. People do forget, after all, even though we have YouTube to remind us of stuff now. However, if other former governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee run in 2012 (and Tim Pawlenty is another possibility), they'll be able to contrast their gubernatorial records with that of Sarah Palin...I think they'll come out well ahead in that comparison. She can brush a lot under the rug, but perhaps not quitting as governor.

Ultimately, polling may be what decides the issue. I wouldn't put much weight on the early early polls that have been conducted this year that have tended to show Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as leading contenders. What will matter is who emerges after the 2010 midterm elections with serious intent to run -- I suspect some shadow names being floated at the moment, like Newt Gingrich, will vanish by then. If an early favorite or two seems disinterested in running and a lesser known figure like Pawlenty remains relatively low profile, I think Palin may very well throw her hat in the ring and see what happens. I don't, however, think she'll win. She might be better off running for Congress in Alaska and trying to rebuild her political career that way...or else just enjoy private life and make the most of her celebrity. I have to give her credit, though, for keeping everyone guessing. That, arguably, is her greatest talent!

Narrowing the Gap vs Raising the Floor

I've noticed that there is a lot of political angst about the rising gap between the rich and the poor, but I've long wondered if that GAP is what is really important. Some political thinkers definitely believe it is. They want to narrow this gap essentially as a matter of principle in the belief that it is immoral for so much of the wealth of a nation to be controlled by so few. They view the social problems in a country, such as unemployment and lack of access to health care, as largely resulting from this gap. However, the way I see it there will always be a large income gap among people in any economic system where people can act more or less freely; the person who saves or invests wisely is going to have more income in the long run on average than the person who spends and consumes wildly. Not everyone even wants to be rich. Sure, most everyone would opt for great wealth if it was as simple to obtain as pressing a button, but many wouldn't sacrifice the time they spend with their families or their hobbies or social commitments just to make a lot more money. Rather than focusing on a gap that naturally arises among people with varying interests, I tend to think the major goal should be to improve the living conditions for the poorest among us so that no one does without necessities. In short, I think we should focus on raising the floor rather than narrowing the gap. Both naturally can happen at the same time, but it's also quite possible to narrow the gap -- any destruction of wealth will do that -- without raising the floor.

Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.

To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?

Independents Rising

Every year is an election year. Although most political junkies are either still recovering from the drama of the 2008 presidential election or are already gearing up for the sure to be eventful 2010 midterm elections, there are also a few notable elections taking place here in 2009 in the United States. Political commentators, ever eager for new data to turn over and spin to their hearts' delight, feel these elections might just show whether the country is leaning more towards President Obama or more against him, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are successful. To me, however, the most interesting thing about the 2009 electoral season doesn't have to do with either the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather the fact that one independent candidate and one third party candidate have remained competitive in their races despite facing decidedly more established opposition.

The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, is competing with Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie for the office of governor in New Jersey. Polls have been all over the place for this election, with Daggett's support in particular proving variable -- at least one poll saw the independent pushing near 20% support, but others have him at less than 10% and pretty much out of striking distance. Which ever scenario is correct, Daggett is quite an interesting candidate. He's just what an independent candidate ought to be, in my view -- a candidate whose views don't fit neatly into a box. He's reminiscent to me of Ross Perot in some ways (though Jon Corzine is definitely the rich guy in the race in New Jersey...he spends millions on his political campaigns out of his own personal wealth), not so much in what he says but in his varied mix of stances on issues and his willingness to adopt new approaches to issues. He certainly has the most interesting approach to taxation. New Jersey's property taxes are among the highest in the nation on average and all three candidates acknowledge to some extent that that has some pernicious effects. Governor Corzine emphasizes the importance of providing relief to vulnerable groups who can't afford such high taxes. Christie absolutely does want to see property taxes fall (he is even more of a supporter of rebates than Corzine) and just about every other type of tax as well, and he's been extremely critical of Corzine's past tax-related actions and how they differed from his rhetoric. What Daggett wants to do, though, is something quite different. Like Christie, he does want property tax rates lower, but he actually is more a tax rearranger than a tax cutter at heart. Instead of having local governments rely so much on the property tax, he wants to increase the reach of the sales tax so that services provided by professionals like lawyers and accountants are also taxed in New Jersey. Now, a tax is a tax (and Christie has blasted Daggett as essentially being a tax and spender, too), but this change would seem to correct an inequity in the sales tax system and at the same time reduce the tax burden on property owners. Sales taxes, generally speaking, let taxpayers exert a greater degree of control on how much they pay than property taxes (at least for property owners), and in this case it's mainly professional services being taxed rather than strict necessities. Daggett's plan, however, does have the burden of being complicated and certainly will require local and state governments to see things eye to eye.

Independents are often viewed as spoiler candidates, and Chris Daggett has definitely been criticized as being one. I find it odd, however, that the general consensus seems to be that Daggett draws more votes away from Christie than Corzine. Daggett has some bold new ideas and isn't afraid to step on a few government toes, particularly in the education sector, but I'd say he leans a little more to the left than to the right politically speaking. He is pro gay marriage, pro-choice, a staunch environmentalist and advocate for green jobs, and pro gun control. While Christie isn't necessarily the polar opposite of Daggett on all those issues, I don't get why Christie supporters would be more apt to go to Daggett than Corzine supporters for ideological reasons...unless Corzine supporters are really, really passionate about their local property taxes. Although I talked about Daggett's different approach to taxation, he's definitely not some small government conservative. He does feel property taxes are too high around the state, but he welcomes the idea of raising other taxes: sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls. Christie is the only real across the board anti-tax candidate. What seems to have hurt Christie is his lack of specifics when it comes to describing how exactly he will reign in spending. New Jersey is already facing a serious budget shortfall; even Corzine's government has adopted austerity policies to deal with the mounting deficit. Every government would theoretically like to eliminate "waste", but it's not so easy to do for one man's waste is another's gravy train. Christie doesn't seem able to do the Ron Paul thing and whittle off the names of dozens of programs he wants to cut -- frankly, he seems more talk than action to me. Though a great debate attack dog, he has more bark than bite. He's also been hurt by the publicizing of an incident in which he escaped a ticket seemingly because of his position as U.S. Attorney...this matters particularly because there's been an awful lot of corruption uncovered among New Jersey politicians lately. On the other hand, I would describe Corzine's campaign as basically lackluster. It might not have a potentially fatal flaw like Christie's, but when you put it all together you get a very uninspiring whole. As an incumbent, Corzine must defend his record, but a campaign based on more of the same is pretty dull. What's more is that Corzine seems to have a tendency to dismiss problems as if they're irrelevant even though many people are very concerned about them. So Corzine expresses pride over New Jersey test scores while Christie and Daggett talk about a dangerously flawed and unequal system. Daggett's description of the way the graduation exam system works in NJ shocked me. Corzine also has a tendency to blame the current poor economic situation in Jersey largely on the overall financial crisis -- I'm sure that's largely true, but sometimes a recession can be something politicians use to hide behind so they don't have to address serious economic problems such as an unfriendly business climate that drives jobs away which is just what Christie thinks New Jersey has.

Can Daggett win? Only in a surprise based on polling data. At the end of the day, it IS hard to beat that two party system...even when you've presented the best campaign, as I think Daggett has. If Christie wins, I think the whole election will have the feel of a referendum on property taxes and on government spending. People will be voting in the hope the man can work miracles in office even as he has struggled to articulate concrete plans on the campaign trail. If Corzine wins, I think that shows that by and large New Jersey voters are content with their state's situation given the state of the nation. Something that Chris Christie said in the October 1st debate has stuck with me: he said that for every one government employee there are twenty one people in New Jersey. I don't know how mathematically accurate that statement is, but I think it sums up why it's so hard for big tax areas to change their levying ways. There are an awful lot of people invested in the status quo in New Jersey. Jon Corzine is their best bet to preserve that status quo. That alone could be enough to power him to victory. In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens and particularly how Daggett's independent campaign fares.

Another election being shaken up by an outsider candidate is the special election to name the next member of the House of Representatives from New York's 23d congressional district. Here the outsider, Doug Hoffman, has a party of sorts -- it's the Conservative Party of New York. It might not seem like a true third party in that it commonly endorses other candidates running as Republicans or Democrats provided they are deemed conservative enough, but from time to time candidates do run under its banner. That seems to have happened in NY-23 primarily because the Republican candidate for the House seat, Dede Scozzafava, was perceived as not being conservative enough primarily due to her stances on social issues and her ties to unions. Scozzafava got some early buzz online as a possible libertarian-leaning candidate because of her pledged support for low taxes and her socially liberal stance on gay marriage, but probably she's better described as a liberal Republican. I think she struggled to find an overarching theme to her campaign, and to a certain extent I think she didn't WANT to run the race she was forced to run. By that I mean I don't think she wanted to be the liberal Republican candidate; her campaign site doesn't seem to include anything about abortion, gay marriage, unions, etc. Instead she talks about pro-business policies, about support for tax cuts, about opposition to the Death Tax and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax, about supporting agriculture, and about protecting seniors. She and the Democratic candidate Bill Owens would likely have argued more about things like who would bring more jobs in to the district and just generally help the constituents out. Owens is naturally also pro-agriculture, and he has an interesting strategy of encouraging investment from Canada. Perhaps they would've scuffled a bit over health care reform -- Dede controversially suggested the "hurry" to change health care was unreasonable while Owens is a supporter of many of the proposed Democrat reforms (he's probably best considered as a moderate Democrat). Ultimately, though, the race wouldn't have been so much about ideology as it would have been about winning the trust of the voters and it would have been much more locally focused despite being a federal election. Doug Hoffman changed all that.

Hoffman seems to be both more ideological and national in his outlook than his two opponents. He opposes bailouts and loathed Obama's stimulus plan. He fervently opposes raising taxes and has signed a "No New Taxes" pledge. He is anti-earmarks. He's opposed to gay marriage. He is strongly pro-life. He's also squarely focused on continuing to fight the war on terror wherever those terrorists lurk. Hoffman is not nearly as unique a candidate as Chris Daggett; by and large, he seems to have many of the same political positions as most Republicans and frankly I'm not so sure he's any more sincere than most GOP politicians when it comes to fiscal issues. Unlike Scozzafava, though, he's ideologically pure from the Republican point of view which has led him to get all sorts of endorsements from well-known Republicans like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson...that is seriously unusual in the world of third party politics where candidates are often treated like pariahs by the establishment. He's also a contemporary conservative -- he's aware of the widespread resentment among conservatives towards the bailouts and free spending in Washington and was able to conflate Scozzafava's support for a New York state stimulus plan with support for Obama's national stimulus plan. If Hoffman wins, my guess is he'll be running for reelection as a regular Republican...with the reendorsement of the Conservative Party of New York, of course.

Unlike Daggett, Hoffman has a very good chance to win the election. The nominal Republican, Scozzafava, has suspended her campaign though she'll still be on the ballot...she had fallen to third place in the race according to polling. Hoffman's policies may not be all that unorthodox, but just the fact that he has managed to do so well and even thwart the hopes of the Republican candidate bodes well for the possibility of other third party and independent candidates also succeeding in American politics. Daggett's success has also been a net positive for much the same reasons. I'm also glad whenever the voters have more of a choice about who to vote for. One thing we can say about both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the NY-23 House race is that all the candidates have different views on some issue or another...hopefully fewer people than usual will have to hold their nose to vote this time around due to those extra options.

Can You Dislike Both Bush and Obama?

I've noticed that it's become common for Obama supporters to dismiss Obama critics by arguing that these critics aren't sincere because they said nothing as George W. Bush wreaked havoc on the nation. Obviously, this tactic does allow Obama supporters to avoid responding to individual criticisms, but there's certainly some validity to this idea. The two party system in the United States encourages the party faithful to ignore the failings of their own politicians yet make mountains out of molehills when it comes to even superficial blemishes of the opposition. Undoubtedly many Obama critics would say nothing if a Republican was in office and doing the very same thing. On the other hand, is it really so unreasonable that an individual -- not a dedicated follower of a particular party -- might dislike BOTH President Bush and President Obama?

I would say that yes, it is quite possible. In some ways, I even think it's quite a natural attitude to have. President Bush's greatest failings seem to me have been his push to war with Iraq, his general fiscal irresponsibility, and his disregard for civil liberties. President Obama has inherited and continued Bush's wars, he's not just continued on the path of big spending but pressed down the accelerator, and he has only done a little bit to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration in regards to civil liberties. Bush effectively had a cover for his wars and restrictions of liberty because of the nation's fear of terrorism. Obama effectively has a cover for his economic policies because of the recession. In both cases, I think there are legitimate reasons to question whether the pursued policies of both administrations were really the best thing for the country at the time.

Of course, there are differences between the two presidents as well. Bush earned much love by cutting taxes. Obama has tackled the issue of health care reform, which millions of Americans have been clamoring for for decades, more avidly than any other president. Bush preferred an aggressive foreign policy while Obama favors a conciliatory one, even to the point of not meeting with the Dalai Lama seemingly to placate China. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the majority of remaining support for Bush (and he's no longer a popular politician at all) boils down to the two issues of terrorism and taxation while support for Obama (who still is favored by the majority of Americans) is largely based on health care and the general hope for an expanded safety net. However, I'd say Obama and Bush have more similarities than they have differences overall. It's easy to mistakenly cast one or the other in a false political light. To say Bush didn't care about social issues, for instance, is to overlook his support (billions of dollars worth) for fighting AIDS in Africa, an unprecedented effort. Obama is sometimes presented as being "weak" on foreign policy, but during his presidency so far the image of America has improved globally.

So, I guess it all boils down to what really matters to you. If one or more of Bush's or Obama's pet issues are most important to you, there's a good chance you'll overlook their faults in other, less important (to you) areas. On the other hand, if you dislike big government spending and deficits, corporate bailouts, and wars that just keep going and going, you have every reason to dislike both presidents.

The Obama Administration Takes on Fox News

The American public has recently received a series of news flashes from the White House warning them that Fox News -- ostensibly just another cable news network, albeit one proudly carrying a slogan of being "fair and balanced" -- is in fact biased (it has a "perspective" according to Rahm Emanuel...scary!) and should not be considered to be a legitimate news organization but rather as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. The Obama team evidently considers informing the public as to Fox News' true identity to be a matter of prime national importance: thus, we've heard administration figures such as Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod weigh in on the subject. Even the president himself has spoken out on the matter. The problem here is that all this isn't news to anyone: I'd think that everyone who has ever watched Fox News for an appreciable amount of time knows it has a perspective and a bias and does not quite live up to its slogan...they don't even have a single non-neocon opinion show host anymore since Alan Colmes stopped co-hosting with Sean Hannity. However, most sensible newshounds realize that virtually every news organization has a "perspective." Fox News tends to reflect a neoconservative point of view, MSNBC tends to reflect a progressive point of view, the Economist tends to advocate for free markets...is there anything really wrong with that as long as the facts presented are generally correct? I do think there is a lack of truly nonbiased reporting in the media, which is a shame (however, it's definitely not just a Fox problem), but I also appreciate being able to get my news from a variety of different viewpoints so I can see the issues from different sides. What the Obama administration seems to be saying is that some perspectives are legitimate and some are not -- in a democratic republic, I don't believe the government should be deciding that.

To be fair, it is very easy to make the administration's war of words against Fox into something it isn't. We're talking about public censure here, not censorship; there's been no discussion of the administration shutting Fox down thus far. Freedom of the press endures. In fact, the diatribes against Fox rather seem to lack teeth -- administration officials still want to appear on Fox News so the White House isn't even boycotting the network. Historically, presidents have often butted heads with the press. Obama is probably not thrilled to be lumped in with President Nixon and his notorious enemies' lists, but he might not mind sharing company with John Adams...Obama has actually been by far the least villainous towards the press of the trio so far, though he still has time to change that. To tell you the truth, this whole scenario has even reminded me of something our last president (you know, the one who butted heads with NBC) would pull off. Isn't President Obama essentially telling the press, "You're either with us or against us!"? While historically normal, it is still disturbing to me that this administration would go out of its way to try to discredit a particular news organization that has broken several stories that reflected negatively on the White House recently. The ACORN, Van Jones, and Anita Dunn controversies weren't all that big a deal in my view, but they certainly did deserve to be covered...Fox News is actually doing a good job of playing the role of presidential watchdog. They're keeping him honest and checking his power; that's one of the things the press is supposed to do. Does Fox always give president a fair shake? Heck no. They also sure didn't do an effective job of checking President Bush's power. At the end of the day, they ARE a bunch of neocons who'd like America to think just like they do. Nonetheless, they're the most important news organization in the country for the moment.

Obama apologists would argue that Fox News isn't being targeted because of its views but rather instead for its tactics. I definitely think it's a good idea for the administration to call out Fox News on actual factual errors. Certainly the network has been linked to unethical practices in the past such as displaying incorrect party affiliations on screen for scandal ridden Republican politicians. It's exceedingly hard to say what is the result of human error or newsroom shenanigans and what is a deliberate attempt to mislead and propagandize, however. Bias is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder -- for instance, conservatives often see the "mainstream media" as liberal and liberals often see it as conservative. When assessing bias, news watchers naturally consider intangibles like what isn't covered and to what extent something is covered. Some think Fox News showed a great deal of bias by giving so much coverage to the tea parties; others think it's other news sources that were biased for NOT covering the tea parties more. What I tend to think is that there's bias swirling all around the media world (and it's not necessarily organizational in nature -- individual reporters can be biased), but it's pretty hard to prove subtle bias conclusively. That's likely why the Obama attacks on Fox have been so lacking in substance so far.

Even if Fox News were worse than it is, I'm not sure I'd ever want the White House to enter the fray publicly in such a way as it has. Even a well-watched media outfit is nowhere near as powerful as the president. This is simply not a battle between equals -- it has made the president seem like a bully. Considering press censorship remains a huge problem in many areas of the world, I think it would be wise for all arms of government to refrain from attacking the press directly. Just speaking personally, this controversy has made me want to watch Fox News more. Watching Fox has become a REBELLIOUS thing to do! It's fighting the power! I can't believe I'm even saying that...it's amazing what a change in administration can do. I suppose there were political reasons for why the full court press was unleashed on Fox. For one thing, Obama's base of supporters seems to love it -- they've been bashing Fox News for being biased for years so this is official confirmation of something that was painfully obvious to them. Another bonus is that it has been a distraction from other issues. I don't believe there is any serious intent on the part of the administration to squelch freedom of the press. Instead, this has been a dog-and-pony show to take some time off the clock and allow the White House some breathing space. It's not easy to be in power in a free republic -- there are political forces that will resist everything you try to do and other political forces that will never be satisfied that you are doing enough. None of them will ever shut up...President Obama should just accept that and get back to work.

Should Protectionism Be Embraced to Protect Domestic Industry?

Free trade is a bit like religion. Most people seem to claim to believe in some form of it -- virtually every politician does -- but you wouldn't always know it based on their actions. It seems like most every developed country uses protectionism to at least protect some sacred cow if not as a general policy. The United States provides generous subsidies to promote domestic agriculture. France has managed to "repatriate" some auto jobs by providing incentives for domestic automakers to move some of their production back to the mother country. Ecuador responded to the financial crisis by significantly increasing tariffs on many products. Clearly, a lot of self-described free traders find something seductive about protectionism.

Honestly, there IS something seductive about it, despite the fact that most economists think it is outmoded and perhaps even dangerous. A nation that produces a wide range of goods and has a strong service economy as well has a much more diversified range of employment options. One reason the unemployment picture in the United States looks so bleak is that people who have lost their jobs must in many cases seek out new training to qualify themselves for other jobs. There is a definite shortage of easy to do jobs...the unheralded victim of the economic crisis is the teenage worker who has seen normally despised starter jobs become suddenly quite desirable. Additionally, a country that can produce what it needs is less dependent on trade and better suited to survive a war that might disrupt international shipping. I would argue that having domestic production is indeed very good...perhaps even vitally necessary. I would even go so far as to say a country that doesn't produce a wide variety of goods cannot take full advantage of its citizens' talents. If good shoemakers and good steelworkers become bad teachers and bad salespeople, a labor problem has perhaps been resolved but society can hardly be said to have benefited, and neither has the individual who is stuck in a job he or she hates! With all that said, I still can't embrace the POLICY of protectionism even though I see domestic production as being very desirable.

The most outstanding benefit of free trade has always been that it has reduced costs for the consumer. Most protectionist policies involve either making foreign goods more expensive or domestic goods more cheap -- either way, the consumer suffers because he or she either must pay a higher price for goods or higher taxes to support governmental subsidies. Outright bans on foreign products reduce choice and competition. I can't really see a way the consumer would benefit from protectionism. You could make the old "foreign products are inferior" argument, I suppose; China seems to have made a mission out of trying to strengthen that argument by marketing such winning products as poisoned pet food, toys with lead point, and home-ruining drywall. However, few would call BMWs or Maseratis inferior. Most electronic devices are assembled in Asia and they seem to drive our increasingly technology-centered lives along pretty well. If foreign products were really that bad, people ultimately wouldn't buy them. In fact, they're good enough for the most part and priced attractively...people have found them irresistible. All citizens are consumers, even service workers and the unemployed -- governments which embrace free trade are looking out for the welfare for their people as a whole far better far better than those governments which embrace protectionism.

What has long puzzled me is not why people buy foreign products but rather why more don't CHOOSE to support domestic industry given the larger benefit to the country. As I see it, free trade has the potential to greatly improve the qualify of life for the poor (potential is too weak a word -- it has already done this around the world). They benefit the most from having cheap goods available to purchase. Every penny they can save counts and represents another step out of poverty. For that reason alone, I'd never oppose free trade...protectionism disproportionately hurts the impoverished. The story just isn't the same for people with some money to spare, however. It baffles me how people will willingly overpay on cars, houses, boats, jewelry, and designer clothes yet nonetheless try to skimp on more everyday items. I personally would rather save money by not overpaying on big ticket purchases that are priced more than they are worth but instead pay a bit more for small ticket items in order to support domestic industry...why aren't there more people who think like me? I suspect shopping habits have as much to do with the downfall of domestic manufacturing as anything else. Retailers like Wal-Mart save money before the consumer even sees a product by purchasing goods made in countries where labor is cheaper. Americans who want to support domestic producers may have to shop online to do so -- Still Made in USA is a good Web resource I happen to use (just in case you're interested in getting started...no pressure from this free trader is intended!). Additionally, many shoppers don't look at country of origin labels at all. It always takes me off-guard how people who frequently complain about the downfall of American manufacturing often don't check to see where the products they are buying are actually made. They have, uncannily enough, become part of the very problem they decry!

I think the toughest political question to tackle is not whether to embrace free trade or protectionism, but rather whether free trade should be followed as an absolute policy and all semblances of protectionism should be abandoned. Should, for instance, the United States stop providing subsidies to its farmers? Should it not use foreign aid to support its defense industry? I can see the national security reasons behind such forms of protectionism. Ideally, agriculture at least could be supported without subsidies, but we've already seen consumers can be fairly quick to abandon domestic producers. Should we just accept that the benefits of having strong domestic agricultural and defense industries are worth the price we pay? Rather than eliminate this limited sort of protectionism, I think I'd experiment with reducing the amount of subsidies slowly and cautiously first. We could at least contain costs if we can't eliminate them. Wasteful support of the military industrial complex and grants to owners of farm land that aren't in fact farming clearly aren't beneficial...in fact, they are an example of the inefficiency of protectionism and show why it really isn't a good idea to expand protectionism to other industries.

Before long, I wonder if arguments like those I've just made will even be relevant. While low wages have been a driving force in encouraging outsourcing of labor from rich countries to poor ones, moving overseas has its costs as well. When it comes to manufactured goods, a good portion of that cost is transportation. I anticipate more and more manufacturing will be done almost entirely by machine in the future as technology develops and the capital investment required falls. This will likely lead to more domestic production to save on transportation costs but perhaps not new jobs (well, apart from robot repairmen...or repairmen for the robots that repair other robots). Many would argue that countries that have a weakening manufacturing base have already entered the future, a future where human labor isn't strictly necessary for material production. Ultimately, I think that future does represent progress...it at least holds out the promise of more leisure and less drudgery for humanity even though it also raises many questions about the economics of the future. That said, the demise of the human laborer has been often predicted since the Industrial Revolution and so far those predictions have largely failed to materialize.

Should There Be an Alternative to the FDIC?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has made saving a worry-free activity for most Americans. I tend to think of the FDIC as one government initiative that has worked quite well for the average citizen. Banks still fail today, but because the FDIC insures deposits and manages the receiverships of failed institutions most depositors lose no money in a bank failure. In fact, often even depositors whose balances exceed what is protected by the FDIC end up not losing any money as the government generally tries to broker deals in which all deposits from a failed institution are transferred to a healthy institution. People can feel confident that their savings really are safe thanks to the FDIC -- a failed bank no longer automatically results in financial failure for numerous depositors.

On the whole, then, I would argue the FDIC does fulfill an important role and does benefit the depositor. However, I think its influence has also been pernicious in other ways. By creating such a secure atmosphere for depositors, the government has reduced competition among the banks. Sure, they still compete on interest rates, customer service, convenience, and product offerings. However, they no longer compete on safety. The incentive to put your money in the steadiest bank has gone away -- your money is protected no matter where you put it, so long as the institution is FDIC insured. I've noticed that banks tend to be anything but transparent. They don't want you to know what they do with your money. They don't want you to know how much money they keep in reserve. They benefit more from the public not knowing how safe their practices are as it takes their fiscal policies out from under the microscope. The less you know about mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps the better as far as financial institutions are concerned. It has become the business of the government to determine when a bank has been too risky; the depositor can remain strangely unconcerned. Of course, the wise saver is still concerned -- he or she doesn't want to go through the disturbance of a bank being shut down and he or she also realizes that even the FDIC itself could fail at some point in the future. The cascade of bank failures we've had over the past couple of years has already strained the institution's resources. Another downside to FDIC insurance is that banks no longer have to compensate their depositors for risk -- at the moment, a 2% rate of return can be considered decent despite all the competition in the banking industry! Additionally, banks have to pay the piper...the FDIC is funded by its member institutions rather than the taxpayer. The FDIC fees tends to leave a little less money available to pay depositors with. The FDIC will even from time to time pressure institutions to pay lower interest rates for safety's sake; this happened recently with Ally Bank. In general, savers haven't been well-served by American fiscal policy which embraces controlled inflation that erodes the value of savings. I'm sure interest rates will rise before long, but they probably will only rise when inflation also rises so the extent to which the saver benefits will be limited.

Can we benefit from FDIC protection yet still make saving worthwhile and encourage banks to compete on safety? We probably can't have everything in one system, but I think we could have two competing banking systems that could do all this in aggregate. The FDIC system could continue be the safe, no-risk system it is now. FDIC-insured institutions would tend to give low returns to depositors and tend to be less transparent to the public. Competing with these safe banks would be a new breed of bank that would offer better transparency, better interest rates, and private insurance of deposits that depositors must themselves purchase if they want it. The person who wants to play it safe would likely have the bulk of their savings in FDIC members, but he or she could also seek out those new institutions that promise safety but still perhaps offer at least marginally better interest rates. Someone who welcomes a little more risk could aim for a higher rate of interest on his or her deposits but would be able to assess how risky the bank's policies really are and also purchase private bank insurance. This increase in banking competition would probably tend to make FDIC institutions more open as well and it might just reduce the amount of money stored in those "too big to fail" institutions that were so careless with depositors' money. I think ultimately it would be good for all if it could be done.

The biggest challenge would be ensuring transparency in the new banks. As it is, you can put your money in illegal ponzi schemes and temporarily earn a high rate of interest -- these, however, are in fact even less transparent than traditional banks and will always end in failure by their very design. Clearly there would need to be some overarching organization (presumably non-governmental) that would certify and monitor the new breed of banks just as the FDIC does and may also have a role of spreading information about banks to the public similiar to what the SEC does for the stock market. Undoubtedly some "banks" will cook their books and try to bilk as many people as possible, hurting not only depositors but the private bank insurer or insurers as well...banking would no longer be so safe. The extent to which it could be made safe would depend on the vigilance of the certifying institution. If put together cautiously by the right people, however, I think this system could be a successful alternative to the FDIC system. Both systems could thrive and make each other better over time.

As it is, the FDIC and the banking system does work for the most part. I remain confident in the FDIC as an institution and fully expect the government to bail it out if it should need help so there's no reason for savers to be too alarmed at its recent financial difficulties, though we should all be concerned about the government's ability to bail out all comers. I don't have the same confidence that the banks will pay good interest rates in the future and I have even less confidence that they will embrace prudent financial practices for the long-term. We need a "private option" in banking which rewards transparency and accountability!

The Politics of Panic

One thing that annoys me about politics is that every little thing seems to get blown out of proportion and presented as if it were the Most Important Thing Ever. Only one thing can possibly be the Most Important Thing Ever so there's clearly some hyperbole going on. I suppose it's a consequence of having a representative government theoretically accountable to the people -- special interest groups, corporations, and members of the government themselves all want to win the people over to their side. If they have to overstate a problem or two, they'll do it...it's the price they have to pay for Victory.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to have gotten worse in the United States since September 11th, a panic-inducing event if we ever had one. The American public was undoubtedly mislead into thinking Iraq presented a clear and present danger to their country -- I think OJ is still out looking for the REAL weapons of mass destruction from prison. I'm perfectly willing to believe the Bush administration were merely following poor intelligence...deliberate manipulation isn't always necessarily the problem. However, the shortage of skeptics was a problem -- why wasn't the administration more circumspect about the very idea of going to war again? Didn't they consider that their basic thesis might be wrong? Didn't they worry that they might be deceiving people and thus would tarnish their place in history? Unfortunately, I think they just saw their panic mongering as a means to a desired end -- I'm sure they realized from the very start that they were exaggerating the threat, but they'd already decided war with Iraq was necessary so it was just part of the process for them. The administration didn't ask the right questions, the Congress didn't question the administration closely enough, and the public was too trusting.

The politics of panic may have reached its zenith during the financial crisis of 2008. "Too big to fail" ranks right up there with WMDs in the lexicon of classic panic terms. In this case, I think the financial industry stirred up much of the panic themselves. At the end of the day, what these oversized institutions were arguing is that they deserved to be treated better than all other institutions. Most banks that are in danger of failure get closed down by the government -- I mean that literally. Banks don't really go bankrupt in our system, and oftentimes all deposits get saved (even beyond the FDIC insurance limits) as long as another bank can be found to take them over. What Citigroup and Bank of America and the other recipients of bank bailout funds argued was, "You can't treat us like other banks." They were able to convince the government of that, and as a result they're still in operation today and still too big to fail. Essentially, the bank bailout was all about preserving bad institutions as they were -- I see no reason why the big, bad banks couldn't have been split up and shrunk dramatically instead of saved intact. It's not like they were in a position to bargain...in a pure capitalistic system, they'd all have failed completely. It was blatantly unfair to treat the bigger banks so much better than the smaller banks (which are still being closed weekly by the government), but the bigger banks were able to use their bigger voice to incite fear, an option the smaller banks just didn't have. Was there an element of truth to "too big to fail"? Of course. But failure wasn't really an option -- the thing is we didn't have to preserve Citi, BOA, etc as they were. They could have been punished and better (or at least less risky) institutions could've taken their place with the assistance of the government. A bank bailout of some kind was probably unavoidable, but it didn't need to take the form it did in my view...it improperly rewarded the banks that cried wolf. For now, at least it does look like the government will make money on those bailouts, if that was the object. (Maybe governments should drop that whole taxation thing and just become moneylenders full-time!)

The health care debate has brought a new burst of public panic. The critics warned of death panels and a government takeover of health care. You could make a slippery slope argument that the current health care reforms being debated could lead to those things down the line (many reform advocates see the public option as a road to single payer, which is definitely a government takeover), but the common argument seemed to be that proposed reforms would lead to that immediately. Definitely panic-mongering...and definitely misleading. On the other hand, proponents of health care reform aren't opposed to a little rabble-rousing of their own -- the way some speak it's a wonder that there's still anyone hasn't been dropped by their health insurer for having some mild health problem. The truth is health insurers pay for an awful lot of health care...the problem with them is they haven't delivered a universal solution that works for everyone who needs care and they haven't always behaved ethically.

The politics of panic makes it harder for anyone to find the truth, unfortunately. You have go past all the noise, all the loud voices, and all the fear-inducing catchphrases to look at the fundamental issues involved. It's rare that there isn't a grain of truth in what the fearmongers say -- failing institutions do pose a threat to the financial system, Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice guy, government health care does tend to lead to more rationing, etc -- but they never give you the whole story. They have a slanted view of the issues and want you to have a slanted view of them as well. It's a mistake to ever made a decision solely based on panic...even in life-threatening situations calmness and thoughtfulness are assets. To preserve representative democracy and maintain the dignity of the voter, we must fight against the fear that supercedes thought.

Lingering in Afghanistan

According to General Stanley McMcrystal, more American troops are urgently needed in Afghanistan if the Taliban's attempts to regain power are to be thwarted. While President Obama has long wanted to put more troops in Afghanistan, McCrystal wants as many as 40,000 more boots on the ground. As Americans focus more on cares closer to home due to the bad economy, support for continuing the seemingly neverending wars begun during the Bush administration is running low. Many would like to see a complete withdrawal even from Afghanistan despite the possibility that the Taliban could retake the country and again provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

In a sense, we can say the Afghan war was a success if we retroactively define its goals narrowly. It was a war launched directly in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks; the Afghan government of the time provided Al-Qaeda with a base from which to operate and coordinate attacks against the United States and its allies. Defeating the Taliban per se was never the object of the war...it was principally about uprooting Al-Qaeda and making it more difficult for them to launch more attacks. The Taliban were only an enemy because they sheltered Al-Qaeda. While the United States and its allies have failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, they have succeeded in disrupting Al-Qaeda, their basic mission. Why, then, do we need more troops? It is merely because the Taliban have proven to be a more resilient enemy than was bargained for, and this is because they, much more so than Al-Qaeda, still have some popular support and are able to recruit a seemingly endless number of impoverished local fighters. Unfortunately, I think if we take the Taliban's bait we'll just be further enmeshed in a war that has no real end in sight. Every time an Afghan civilian is caught in the crossfire, another family turns against the "foreign invaders." It honestly could go on forever, and that's what really scares me.

I think the main military mission in Afghanistan has already been achieved though perhaps not permanently. Our problems right now are with the nation-building aspect of the mission that we've never really wanted to take on. We're stuck propping up a government that, if the recent indications of electoral fraud are any sign, appears to be corrupt and can't be counted on to win hearts and minds. Putting more troops in won't make the government honest and it won't make Taliban supporters give up on an idea of an Islamic state which is as old as Islam itself. Muhammad was himself a military leader, and the first leaders of the Caliphate were among his closest personal associates. There will ALWAYS be people in Afghanistan who are sympathetic to the idea of a Taliban-type government...always. It really doesn't matter how many troops there are unless the intent is slaughter on a massive scale, a morally indefensible mission. The alternative to depopulating Afghanistan is to try to help the Afghans build up something they can't bear to lose, and that's what I favor.

Right now, the main reason Afghans have for opposing the Taliban is the Taliban's own abuses and their oppressive governance. Even if the United States and NATO left the country entirely, the Taliban would still have a lot of fighting to do within Afghanistan. However, the Taliban also have made plenty of friends, particularly among religious Pashtuns who appreciated the relative stability the Taliban brought. To truly win in Afghanistan, the US needs to help make Afghanistan a better nation even as it is in chaos; the new Afghanistan has to be thoroughly better than the old Afghanistan to discredit the former regime. You can kill Taliban all day and still not accomplish that. What is sorely needed in the country is a social and economic revolution: modernizing agriculture, building schools and hospitals, expanding access to electricity, providing support for entrepreneurs, and other things of that nature are sorely required. I would try to first build up the areas of the country that have the LEAST support for the Taliban. Let those areas be an example to the rest of the country that life really can be better. Afterwards, expand into the more dangerous areas with the assistance of the military...you can guarantee that the new infrastructure and social projects will be targeted by militants. It's not a surefire solution, but it attacks the root of the problem and is, in my view, more likely to yield long-term results if done on a grand enough scale than simply bringing in more troops is. The more subtle the approach, the better -- ideally, you don't want the Afghans to see what we would consider progress to be a threat to their civilization. That might mean helping to build a few mosques and even focusing on education for boys ahead of education for girls. That's not the ideal way to go, but we're talking about a war-torn and conservative country here...this is not the time for social activism. All Afghans have a vision for what they would like their country to be; our best shot at winning peace is trying to build that country closer to THEIR collective vision than to ours for now.

Now, for the tricky part...finances. Continuing the Bush wars as they are conducted now is expensive enough; to expand them further is prohibitively expensive in my view since a complete victory can't be assured. Building up Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy is going to be quite expensive as well, though, which is why the most fiscally prudent among us would like to cut and run. What I would do to start off with is reorient American foreign aid towards Afghanistan for the near future. Israel and Egypt currently get huge amounts of American aid far in excess of their importance, in large part because we want them to buy weapons from us. Bringing stability to Afghanistan is more important than propping up our defense industry, I think, so aid to Israel and Egypt should be at least halved and those savings used to build up Afghanistan instead. In fact, cutting aid and moving the savings to Afghanistan across the board would be a wise strategy if we can do it without stepping on too many toes. The many NGOs that operate in the country can also be of some assistance with these new projects, particularly in more peaceful areas of Afghanistan. Other foreign governments will likely also continue to offer aid; if they can be made interested in assisting particular infrastructure or humanitarian projects, that would be excellent. However, we have to be careful that the money goes to the right places and projects that employ and help Afghans. We can't help but continue to spend some money maintaining a military presence and helping the Afghan security forces, but that's all needed just to stymie the Taliban; investing in Afghanistan is the best way I can see to actually achieve a lasting victory.

Is the Republican Party in Crisis?

After every change in power, members of the losing party tend to wring their hands and ask one another, "Is there no hope for this country?" What they really mean is, "Is our party sunk this time...for good?" Despite many ups and downs, the Democratic and Republican parties have proven to be most resilient political parties and both have bounced back from humbling defeats in the past. Their longevity has been closely tied with their willingness to change their platform in response to changing times. Few Democrats advocate for Free Silver these days and few Republicans would call themselves non-interventionists. If history is our guide, in all likelihood the Republicans will survive their electoral losses in 2006 and 2008. However, parties do sometimes fizzle out of existence, and I think there are two major threats to the Republicans' long-term future.

The Achilles' heel for the Republicans is their insincerity. George W. Bush promised a humble foreign policy and delivered two wars. Virtually every Republican plays lip service to the idea of smaller government but while in power they have tended to expand the federal government. Somehow or other they've gotten the idea that fiscal conservatism just means lower taxes -- as long as you lower taxes, it doesn't matter if you spend more or accumulate huge deficits. Genuine fiscal conservatives, though, want the government to not just earn less but also to spend less; they recognize that an indebted nation is just as in danger of bankruptcy as an indebted company or individual but that the consequences of a national bankruptcy tend to be far worse and affect millions of people. While fiscal conservatives are unlikely to become Democrats, they will find it increasingly difficult to support Republicans who continually say one thing and deliver another. As I see it, sooner or later the Republicans will have to make a choice. Do they stand for smaller government even if that might damage America's ability to intervene politically and militarily in her interests worldwide? Are they willing to make the hard choices -- yes, even the politically damaging ones in the short-term -- that restoring the country's fiscal fitness will require? I don't think the Republicans can count on the votes of fiscal conservatives permanently...rhetoric can only go so far when it is not backed up by policy.

The Republicans' second great weakness is demographics. A century ago, the Democratic Party, particularly in the South, was THE racist party. That's simply what they were...the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, after all. Chameleons as always, the parties changed sides in the Civil Rights Era. The Republican Party welcomed former Democrat segregationists like Storm Thurmond into their midst. Republicans cynically pursued the Southern Strategy which sought to capitalize on lingering racist attitudes among whites at the expense of the black vote. Nowadays, racist rhetoric from national politicians is exceedingly rare, but the damage has been done. The Republicans still get the majority of the white vote, but the Democrats are heavily favored amongst blacks and to a lesser extent among Hispanics yet still get a big chunk of the white vote themselves. For the Republicans to change this now will be difficult because they are simply not trusted by minority voters. Frankly, why would they be? You can't embrace Storm Thurmond one day and then pretend it all didn't happen the next...it'll probably take at least another generation for Republican flirtations with racists to be forgotten. Meanwhile, the Democrats are going to fiercely try to defend the minority vote. The crazy thing is that minorities that don't necessarily approve of Democratic policies will still vote for Democrats simply because they don't feel they can trust Republicans. The Republicans are continually losing votes from fiscal conservatives, from pro-lifers, from tax cutting advocates, from supporters of the War on Terror, and from other groups whose interests they claim to represent simply because of the party's past racial strategies. As I see it, this is the most dangerous long-term threat to the Republican Party and it could very well lead to the formation of new conservative parties that don't carry the race-related baggage of the GOP.

An alternative possibility is that the Republican Party will be reformed from within. That's essentially what libertarian-leaning Republicans are trying to do. Peter Schiff and Rand Paul are both Republicans campaigning for Senate seats in 2010, Schiff in Connecticut and Paul in Kentucky. I find their candidacies interesting because they spend most of their time talking about economics and don't mind getting specific about how they hope to cut costs. Schiff's take on America's wars is devastatingly to the point: We can't afford them any longer. Eschewing moral and foreign policy arguments, Schiff rarely takes his eyes off the bottom line. Even those who support the War on Terror in theory have to admit it's been an expensive affair in practice. How well Schiff and Paul will do provides a good window into the attitudes of the electorate: if the voters really are bothered by the debt, by the bailouts, and by general fiscal irresponsibility, they'll do well and the whole party may start taking fiscal conservatism more seriously. On the other hand, if they bomb, that suggests Republican voters are still concerned more with other things than they are with fiscal matters which may make fiscal conservatives more inclined to jump ship rather than keep fighting for representation within the party.

Could Health Insurers Do Things Differently?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say here that I think the health insurance industry would prefer not to have to spend millions of dollars lobbying politicians year after year in order to stay in business. I'm not entirely confident my guess is correct, especially considering that the Baucus health care plan wants to force people to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. There's no doubt the big insurers play the political game well and have become increasingly audacious in their attempts to use the system to their advantage. They're on a precipice, though -- the health care debate going on now might well be very different if the economy were in better shape and if the US government wasn't so deeply in debt. Denying coverage to Americans in desperate need for medical care and rescinding policies for frivolous reasons may have made good business sense, but it was a terrible public relations policy for the insurance industry.

Ideally, health insurance companies really ought to be looking out for people's health for the simple reason that they make more money when people don't get sick. While rising health care costs have coincided with rising premiums, that's ultimately a path to oblivion. At some point, most people won't be able to afford either health care or health insurance the way things are going. Cutting the costs of health care and creating a healthier country is actually in the insurance companies' best interest. Apart from embracing preventative care and spreading health information, though, I'm not sure the insurers have really tried to play an active role in trying to fix the underlying problems with health care in the United States. If their industry survives health care reform (and it certainly looks like it will considering the level of resistance to the public option, let alone single payer) intact, they should start doing some things differently in my view. Differently in what way? Thanks for asking; I do happen to have a few ideas...

#1. Branch off into the medical devices business.

I've done a little studying of public health insurance companies' income statements and noticed they're consistently quite profitable, but not quite making Exxon profits either. Insurance companies (well, apart from AIG) tend to be somewhat conservative -- after all, they have to always consider the worst case scenario. For a health insurance company, there are some scary worst case scenarios, like epidemics. Right now the big insurers have money, but I don't think it's realistic to expect them to directly enter the hospital or pharmaceuticals business in a notable way due to the sheer costs involved. It probably wouldn't even be desirable for them to do so; it's scary to have one entity controlling health care. If you don't want the government in charge of your health from cradle to the grave, you definitely don't want insurers to have that level of control, either.

What I think the insurers might be able to do, though, is enter the medical devices industry as a side business. High tech medicine is expensive. It's undoubtedly true that some technologies are overused and that that overuse plays a big part in increasing health care costs, but we definitely don't want technology to go away from medicine...it's still saving lives every day even if it isn't always used efficiently or wisely. The insurers could try to fill niches in the medical devices business, probably through acquisitions. At the very least, a medical devices side business can be used as a hedge against rising health care prices (if insurance profits go down, there's a good chance medical device income will go up so maybe premiums won't need to be raised so much). What would be better is if the insurers used the medical devices business as a loss leader for their core business. They wouldn't need to count on medical device profits so they could sell at lower prices, bringing the costs of this aspect of health care down and in turn making their insurance business more profitable. However, to remain competitive in their new sector, they'd have to invest in R&D as well so it'd be rather a delicate balancing act for them.

#2. Invest in research.

I think insurers might be able to work with smaller universities and pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs. Here, the insurers should try to be financiers rather than overseers and try to work with other organizations that also want drug costs reduced, but there should be strings attached to their funding which will in some way lead to reduced drug costs. I'm not entirely sure how to go about that myself -- I'm not in the health care business, I just pretend to be someone who knows what he's talking about online -- but I think there ought to be a way that the insurance companies could help new players emerge in the pharmaceutical market who would have been held back by the costs of doing business. (The insurers could also lobby the government to change its regulatory methods and make developing drugs less expensive, I suppose, but I tend to think we need tight drug regulation...medicine is useless if it isn't safe to use. However, it is very scary that it costs nearly a billion dollars to develop a new prescription drug, though that isn't solely because of regulation.)

#3. Increase supply.

One way to reduce health care costs is to try to reduce how much medical professionals make. That sounds mean, but there are a couple of reasons why entering health care is lucrative that aren't such good things at all: first of all, there is a shortage of personnel in some areas (right now we're hearing a lot about the lack of general practitioners) and secondly education is expensive. Insurers should want more nurses, more X-ray technicians, more general practitioners, more nurse practitioners...more of everything...to bring costs down and help create a healthier population. They can help make this happen through scholarships among other things. I would particularly like them to look into helping universities start new medical schools, typically a very expensive undertaking, and also helping to fund additional residencies for doctors beyond what is funded by Medicare where possible.

#4. Let people help.

The uninsured as a group are not viewed with a friendly eye by the health insurance industry. They're potential customers who are refusing to pay up. That attitude is embodied in the idea of a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. That attitude is flawed, though, because it overlooks the possibility that people really cannot afford insurance even though they may not be eligible for Medicaid. Every person, every family, and every household has a unique financial situation -- just looking at annual income doesn't always give the whole story. I would like to see the health insurers team up and let their customers voluntarily help fund the premiums of those who cannot afford the costs yet aren't being covered by Medicaid (I would suggest that the goal be to extend catastrophic coverage so more people can be covered. This also gives people a motivation to get more comprehensive coverage down the line instead of just accepting freebies). Let people help tackle the problem of the uninsured themselves if they want to do so. This shouldn't cost the health insurers much at all...the tricky part would be setting it up in accordance with state and federal law. The undertaking could even take the form of an Internet site like Microplace or Kiva which would allow people to read about the circumstances of the uninsured whose health insurance they are funding. Each individual donor might only fund part of a premium on average; the wealthy or organizations might put a lot more money in. The important thing, though, is that there would be fewer uninsured. That would be a good thing. It won't solve the problem, but it would help at least a little bit.

I don't know how realistic any of my propositions really are individually, but I do think the insurers need to either take a more proactive role in the process beyond protecting their own skin or slash premiums and at least try to stop being part of the problem. The best argument I can think of against the insurers taking several of the steps I suggested is the expense of it all -- rather than reinvesting in other areas of health care, the insurers could just reap less profits and pass the savings to the consumer. The problem with that argument, though, is that health insurance can't be decoupled from the larger costs of health care...they're as directly related as two businesses can be. We certainly can't expect the insurers to solve everything on their own -- they have definite financial limits, and I think some of my ideas would be difficult to implement due to legal requirements. They can play a very important role in the process, however, and I think they've been shirking that role in favor of maintaining the status quo and lobbying the government for gifts.

Global Warming and the Consumer

While the debate on global warming is a contentious one, with some people claiming the whole thing is a fabrication, I do personally believe it is a serious problem. Weather is certainly complicated and affected by many factors. Even though some of the warmest years on record have occurred very recently, it's not unusual for temperatures to drop on a year to year basis -- because the trend isn't always consistent, global warming doubters often dismiss the whole thing as some sort of grand conspiracy. I personally like how the temperature graphs on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies web site's paints the global warming picture; both sides could find fuel for an argument in the data provided there, but it reinforces my feeling that we can't ignore rising temperatures. What is uncontroversial is that greenhouse gases trap heat and thus that increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities will trap more heat. The ultimate question of the global warming debate is a matter of timing: is there really a crisis NOW that must be dealt with immediately or has the issue been overstated by those with political and economic agendas of their own?

Those who see the world as running out of time are pushing for climate change legislation such as the cap and trade bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It's fair to call cap and trade a tax on emissions, designed to make polluting more expensive and "going green" less expensive. So long as burning fossil fuels is less expensive than investing in alternative forms of energy, fiscal prudence limits the number of companies that will actively choose to pollute less. Cap and trade creates an incentive to reduce emissions and punishes those who continue to pollute. However, even if over the long-term companies will cut back on emissions in response to the legislation, in the short-term they will likely try to place as much of the financial burden of cap and trade as they can on the consumer. That's not ever going to be good for the economy, though it's reasonable to hope the economic situation in the country will be much better before the effects of cap and trade will really be felt.

What bothers me about cap and trade the most is that it will certainly hurt the consumer to a certain extent even though the consumer hasn't had that much chance to change things on his or her own yet. Fluorescent bulbs have become common place, it's true, but electric cars aside from the expensive dream machines sold by Tesla Motors are still on the way. In the next few years, there'll be more choice in the car market in terms of low emission vehicles as several automakers are planning to unveil electric vehicles...the Nissan Leaf is one that's getting a lot of attention now. Many consumers leaped ahead of the trend by buying hybrids like the Toyota Prius, but electric vehicles are emission free and represent another big step forward for green autos. How green they truly are depends on how your electricity is produced, but even in the worst case scenario they're far greener than the best gas-powered car. Another emerging technology is solar power for small scale uses, such as for recharging cell phone batteries or powering a netbook. There are a number of advantages to these emerging technologies that aren't even environmental. For instance, electric vehicles should require considerably less maintenance than their gas guzzling cousins and they can be fueled at home -- while there are concerns over the lack of a charging infrastructure (this limits long range travel) and the longevity and expense of EV batteries, electric vehicles are a triumph for convenience. The new breed of solar power uses makes it easier than ever to go off the grid but still stay connected to the world. It's a bit more controversial about whether you'll actually save money by going green (no more gas bills for electric cars, reducing your electricity bills by using solar power) but in some cases you certainly will. My solar calculator definitely saved me money on batteries during my college years (and it's still my favorite calculator to this day)!

Basically, there are plenty of reasons for consumers to lead the green revolution. They stand to benefit from green technologies. If they feel they can help save the world in the process, that's an added incentive at the very least...for some, it'll be the dominant reason for making the initial purchase. It will be harder to make companies to change their polluting ways without something like cap and trade(though the consumer can have a big impact here as well) , but at the end of the day even they have every reason to want to preserve the world, too. Black marketeers are the only ones who make money in an apocalypse. Cap and trade isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I think the government could promote energy alternatives more benignly by continuing to make green investments and evangelizing all the positives (not just environmental) emerging technologies that are just now becoming widely available bring to the table. Taxing consumers isn't exactly the best way to create a new breed of environmentally responsible citizens...it will spur resentment to one degree or another and create suspicion that the whole thing is a scam designed to draw big profits. Nobody wins if cap and trade is passed under the current administration and shut down under another. Ultimately, though, we must return to the issue of timing. Cap and trade supporters don't think we have time to let the country voluntarily go green. I personally think they just might be selling the consumer short, however.

In Search of a Reasonable Opposition

There are many reasons why someone might feel skeptical about Barack Obama's political agenda. Health care reform and cap and trade are not pedestrian measures -- they will change how this country works and affect everyone in it to some extent. I would frankly be concerned if everyone was on board with such dramatic change...they're the type of issues that we need to have a national debate about. Perhaps the largest issue facing the United States that both parties tend to pay only lip service to is our national debt which continues to balloon wildly. Truthfully, it has been huge for a long time -- as long as I've been alive certainly-- but recently there have been rumors of revolt by our foreign creditors, with China among other nations suggesting the need for a new reserve currency and overall less global dependence on the already battered American economy. To me, at least, the debt and our general economic situation is the main thing that prevents me from supporting health care reform enthusiastically. I loathe the failings of the present system, but sometimes I wonder what the point of reform is if our economy is in danger of a total collapse. How can we build a stronger country on an increasingly unsteady foundation? Don't we need to fix the foundation first?

My main point here is that I think the Obama administration should be questioned and challenged where it matters. Unfortunately, though, I can't help but feel dismayed at the way the political discourse over the past few months has been conducted. The fight for health care reform has by some been framed as a fight for or against "death panels", as if that is an outcome anyone in the administration really desires. Focusing on rationing is reasonable because that's a real consequence of the shortage of resources that government health care programs tend to run into. However, trying to make it seem like the president and other Democrats want to kill people -- to portray them as being essentially evil -- is a hideous distortion designed to scare rather than inspire thought. Even something as insignificant as Obama's speech tomorrow to school children -- basically a glorified pep talk -- has been blown out of proportion and portrayed as a form of intentional indoctrination. The critics were right that the suggested activity for teachers that involved asking students how they could help Obama was inappropriate, but the speech itself is harmless and uncontroversial and totally undeserving of such hype. I honestly don't really LIKE the idea of politicians making speeches directly to children myself. We shouldn't inject politics into the classroom. Still, we shouldn't act like words are poison that children need to be protected from, either. Obama is hardly the first president to address the nation's youth, and for many of the children listening to the president it will probably be a positive and encouraging experience. Hysterical reactions to a pretty innocent matter just make it seem like people will attack Obama for any reason...which they in fact will, for that's how the game of politics is played by both sides in 2009's America.

The most regrettable aspect of not having a reasonable opposition is that it allows hysteria to replace thoughtful debate. Reasonable people who've studied health care reform can't be blamed for deciding, "This death panel stuff isn't in the bill. The Republicans are just making stuff up." The core fiscal issues have been obfuscated by the exaggerations and the theatrics. It may be even worse that energy is being wasted on an issue like the school children speech for that just emboldens supporters of the president who will decry that the president is being unfairly targeted. I've noticed that many people simply see much of the criticism of Obama as being motivated by race -- that's what happens when you put forth silly arguments lacking in substance. What has really been accomplished if health care reform is defeated, the underlying problems with the present system remain unfixed, and the debt to GDP ratio continues to rise unabated due to other government spending (you know, the trillions that Democrats and Republicans can both agree on)? If the fundamental issues aren't addressed when they are most relevant, I doubt they ever will be.