Sore Losers

One interesting aspect of the 2010 midterm elections is that multiple candidates who have bucked the traditional party system are playing important roles in multiple races. Ordinarily, this would be something I'd be delighted about. I like the idea of candidates running as individuals and not attempting to mush their personal ideas to fit with the prevailing ideology of a particular political party. Even though independent candidates rarely win elections, many voters are registered as independents -- I think that's because a lot of them don't feel entirely represented by either the Republicans or Democrats. A lot of people agree more with one party on certain issues and more with the other on certain other issues. An independent candidate of the Ross Perot mold has the freedom to be as idiosyncratic as the voter because he or she has no party to please. Unfortunately, in 2010 a couple of important senatorial candidates are running contrarian campaigns not so much because they rejected the parties but rather because their parties rejected them.

I'm speaking of course of Charlie Crist who is vying for attention from Florida voters with Marco Rubio and Kendrick Meek as well as Lisa Murkowski who is trying to hold on to her Senate seat in Alaska against Joe Miller and Scott McAdams. The two took different paths to get to where they are today: Charlie Crist is running as an independent while Murkowski is trying to be elected via a write-in campaign as a Republican even though Joe Miller is the official Republican nominee. What the two have in common is that both kept running after seeking their party's nomination and failing to receive it. Crist launched his independent campaign in response to polls that showed Rubio the Republican favorite in the primary. Murkowski was even more audacious in that she competed in the Republican party primary to the bitter end and lost to Joe Miller yet still did not end her candidacy.

I won't argue that Crist and Murkowski don't bring anything unique to the table. Both are considered more moderate than their Republican opponents yet more conservative than their Democratic opponents. Had they chosen to leave their parties right from the get-go and run as independents I'd have completely respected their decision to do so and welcomed their attempts to shake things up in this stultifying two party political world. Under the circumstances, though, they both seem like sore losers and utterly untrustworthy to me. It's one thing to say, as Crist does now, that the Republican Party has left him and others of similar views behind -- it's another to seek the Republican nomination only to suddenly discover your independent roots when it becomes apparent you aren't going to be your party's nominee. Both Crist and Murkowski seemed to respect how their party did things right up to the point where they didn't become nominated candidates; that's exactly why I can't respect them. They thought the Republican Party was great...as long as Republican voters made the "right" choice in the primary. Had Crist polled better and Murkowski won her primary, they would never have bumped heads with their party. To me, both Crist and Murkowski seem absolutely desperate to gain power, and their candidacies seem an almost pure reflection of their personal ambition. I don't support "sore loser" laws which try to legally prevent independent candidacies from primary losers, but at the same time I don't support "sore losers"...I just don't see how you could ever trust a candidate who wants to win that badly.

Nonetheless, Murkowski and Crist are picking up votes according to the polls. Indeed, both are currently running close to their Republican rivals and beating the Democrats in their races. In Alaska, that perhaps reflects the difficult position the Democratic Party currently occupies in that state. In Florida, Crist's success seems to have come partly on the back of the Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek who has lost support from members of his own party. I find it rather puzzling that there are Democrats who would have voted for Meek over Charlie Crist had Crist been the Republican nominee yet are willing to vote for Crist over Meek as long as Rubio in the race as well...but that's the wonder of strategic voting at work. Unfortunately, Murkowski and Crist's great adventures may well inspire more sore loser candidates in the future...and make it even more difficult for real independent candidates to be noticed.

Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act, and the Trouble With Ideological Candidates

Kentucky Republican and Senate candidate Rand Paul has recently aroused a great deal of controversy for expressing concerns with one aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: namely, the authority it gives to the federal government to forbid businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. While Paul has stated that he approves of the Act's forbidding of discrimination on the governmental level without reservation, he is uneasy with the idea of businesses being compelled to provide service to all due to his firm belief in the rights of property owners. It all boils down to, "Does a private entity get to decide what to do with its property even if it hurts other people?" To understand the nature of the controversy and Paul's stance on the issue, you might want to watch his interview on the Rachel Maddow Show: part 1 and part 2 are on YouTube.

While the younger Dr. Paul seems to see this issue purely through the prism of property rights, I think there are other factors involved which is why I disagree with him. You have the right to own a gun, but you can't use it in any possible way without infringing on the rights of others. In the same way, I don't think property owners should have the right to use their property as a weapon to hurt others and deny them from purchasing what may be vitally needed goods and services. I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to ask property owners who choose to do business with the public at large to serve all equally regardless of their demographic, no more than I think it is too much of a sacrifice to ask gun owners not to shoot innocent people who aren't threatening life, limb, or property. I absolutely understand where Rand Paul is coming from -- property rights are not anywhere near as respected as they should be in this country. Still, even property rights should have limits, and the appropriate place for rights to end is when they start to hurt other people severely and unnecessarily. Oddly enough, I actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is actually fairly moderate. It allows private clubs not open to the public to discriminate as they wish, and it allows all entities to discriminate against unmentioned groups all they want to (hence: "No shirt, no shoes, no service").

With that said, I've thought that all the media and blogging hoopla over Rand Paul's comments has been ridiculous, and it's given me some new insight into how the political powers that be seek to maintain the status quo. As wrong as I think Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is, it's hardly as if he was campaigning to repeal it. Indeed, he has since stated for the record that he would not seek to change it and in fact he has even said that he would have voted for the Act despite its restrictions on business had he been in Congress at the time. He was never a racist demagogue blowing dog whistles to rally racists to his cause which is why he now resembles a dog running away with its tail between its legs as he tries to talk his way out of the firestorm. What Paul's "baggage" is is actually simply political ideology. People often wonder why it is that Republicans who talk about the importance of individual liberty when it comes to gun rights often turn around and support legislating morality or why Democrats are so keen on expanding social services but yet often also support inflationary policies and direct and indirect taxes that make products and services more expensive. The answer is easy enough: the overwhelming majority of politicians do not have an overarching political philosophy that they try to apply to each and every political stance they have. They don't mind being philosophically inconsistent -- it's probably not something most of them even think about. Rand Paul is vulnerable on issues like civil rights because he doesn't pick and choose when his political philosophy is important to him. He strives for consistency even when that leads him into uncomfortable territory. In his discussion with Rachel Maddow, he mentioned how freedom of speech protects the words of even those who hold despicable views. It's not a stretch at all to go on from there to say that property rights should also apply to those who hold despicable views. It's perfectly possible to support freedom of speech and property rights without necessarily supporting how those freedoms are used by cruel and hateful individuals. As such, I can respect Rand's point of view even though I disagree with him. He probably has a rosier view of humanity than I do and believes that racist business owners would get skewered in the market just as he's currently being skewered in the press and online. As much as I distrust government, I nonetheless don't trust people not to treat each other like crap either; to expect otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history.

What Paul's opponents on the Democratic side of things want now is for people to not simply disagree with Paul's position on civil rights but to be afraid of him. They want him to be perceived as a monster rather than simply as misguided. Above all else, they want people whose support of smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal restraint (topics that Rand Paul made the center of his campaign rather than civil rights) would make them uneasy about voting for Jack Conway or any Democrat given the current political climate to stay home on Election Day. As a political ploy, it just might work -- if it does, I think it'll be an ample illustration of why people who are so passionate about their ideas that they take them to the nth degree seem to flounder when facing off against career politicians and the political establishment time and time again. While this makes it more difficult for extremists (relative to prevailing popular opinion, that is) to win office, it also makes it harder to get anything other than the same old breed of career politicians elected. Those folks aren't all bad, but frankly I'd bet at least a few of them are as perturbed by Rand Paul's advocacy for legislative term limits as they are about anything else the opthamologist has said.

Energy Policy and the Worst Case Scenario

We all make decisions about how much risk we are willing to take on as we go about our daily lives. Some of us focus more on probability (the likelihood that something bad will happen to us if we take a certain action) and others of us focus more on the worst case scenario, the most negative consequence that could reasonably occur in response to our action. If you focus purely on probability, an activity like skydiving is not particularly dangerous -- one death per 100,000 jumps is not too bad. On the other hand, skydiving accidents are frequently fatal when they do occur. The worst case scenario is severe.

Fear of the worst case scenario is perhaps the main reason why the United States hasn't embraced nuclear power to a greater degree than it has. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant that exposed millions of people to small doses of radiation had a decisive impact on public opinion. What happened at Three Mile Island wasn't the worst case scenario by any means -- no one died as an immediate result of the accident, and the public health implications of the event are still being debated. What it did, however, was remind the public, the government, and the power industry of just how dangerous nuclear power can potentially be. Nowadays the majority of the American people do support nuclear power once again, but 31 years is a long time for any event to hold a prominent place in the collective memory. Another serious nuclear accident could change perceptions in a jiffy, and regulators and the industry certainly haven't forgotten what happened in 1979.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill of 2010, on the other hand, is a worst case scenario we're seeing unfold before our eyes. The initial catastrophe claimed 11 lives of oil workers, a tragedy in and of itself, but the ensuing disaster will have widespread implications for millions of people and animals. That the damage to the marine ecosystem and the Gulf Coast economy will be severe is a given -- how the disaster will affect the hydrologic cycle and weather patterns is more of an open question at this point. This thing is bad enough to fundamentally change how risky offshore oil drilling is perceived to be. The probability of such a spill hasn't really changed that much...remember, there's offshore drilling going on all over the world, from West Africa to the North Sea. Massive explosions and oil spills aren't typical occurrences. One study found that just 2% of the oil in the oceans is a result of offshore drilling. So, for me at least, the issue isn't whether or not offshore drilling is too bad for the environment to be permitted...what I wonder is if the worst case scenario is so severe that it's not even worth the small risk of such massive spills.

One approach is to try to make offshore drilling and nuclear power more safe through more stringent regulations. It seems clear that BP and Transocean did not do all they could do to prepare for a worst case scenario -- just as Three Mile Island changed nuclear governmental policies, so too will the Gulf Oil Spill change governmental policies towards offshore drilling. Still, regulations can only go so far. Accidents WILL happen. Although nuclear plants are probably safer now than they used to be, the cynic in me can't help but wonder if the main reason Three Mile Island hasn't been repeated is because the nuclear power industry was utterly stalled following the accident and has only very recently shown some signs of revival. I can imagine a new regulatory environment having a chilling effect on offshore drilling in the Gulf -- risky behavior is not always banned when it can be disincentivized instead. Is that the right choice in a world where petroleum is still king and likely still will be for some time to come? I'm honestly not sure. We've seen a glimpse of the worst case scenario for offshore drilling and it is extremely ugly, but if the end result of all this is that Americans will just consume more oil drilled offshore from other countries, is that really an environmental triumph or just an economic setback?

A More Democratic Form of Capitalism

Many people see the financial crisis as an example of a failure of capitalism in general. It is capitalism's very nature, they argue, to create boom and bust cycles and cause grossly unequal and unfair distributions of wealth. On the other side of the equation, you have people arguing that capitalism essentially doesn't exist in the modern world -- it's all corporatism as governments bend over backwards to give the biggest and most favored corporations extra advantages over smaller businesses, including bailouts. Both sides of critics would agree that modern economic system is not even close to ideal, as indeed do I. Sometimes, though, I wonder if a mistake is made by focusing too much on business and too little on the individual.

Who is the modern individual? In the United States, he tends to be a worker, a consumer, and a debtor. When he loses his job, he really has no personal safety net -- he has no savings to speak of to tap into and debts that still need to be paid regardless of whether or not he has income. He relies on unemployment payments from government unemployment insurance funds, bankruptcy to relieve his debts, and family and friends to help him stay afloat until he finds a new job. If he doesn't find a new job before his unemployment check runs out, he will likely have to rely on government benefits and charity. Thus, work is the center of his universe -- it may not be so extreme as, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," but the consequences of being unemployed are dire indeed. Ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of the current recession to me is the notion endorsed by some economists of a "new normal" and permanently higher unemployment. Karl Marx would still understand the world of today: for all our technological advances and all our sophisticated machinery, we're still a world of workers and society is struggling to deal with the possibility of larger numbers of people not working less because they do not want to as because there is less need for their labor due to technology and outsourcing.

I wonder if a change in ideals is in order. Perhaps we need to stop idealizing work so much and instead idealize the concept of owning. We live in a world where even starting a business has become easier -- online businesses often require less startup capital than real world ones, for instance. It is also easier to run a "mini-business" online as you often don't have the same level of maintenance costs (for instance, you might store inventory in your closet instead of a rented warehouse) and may not need to commit as much time (for example, you don't have to wait all day behind a counter or answer the phone to fulfill orders...you just need to check your email or online storefront every so often). It has also never been easier to be a part owner of a publicly traded company by owning stock. Competition amongst discount brokers have driven fees way down which makes a tremendous difference for the investor without much money. The reason, of course, why owning tends to be less glorified is that starting a business or buying stock necessarily entails some risk -- you may, indeed, end up worse off for your investment than better off. Owning also tends to reward the patient, the creative, and the studious which are not qualities everyone has to the same degree. However, work also entails some risk: harsh working conditions claim the lives of workers each year, lead to many injuries, and sometimes cause long-term health catastrophes, for instance. Most importantly, though, work is risky because you may lose your job at any time. I think it is a necessity to have something to fall back on because it is very likely a worker will end up unemployed periodically and, if the "new normal" is to be believed, periods of extended unemployment may be only more common in the future.

Not all investments are equally risky, and it is certainly possible even for the layman to research public companies to see how deeply they are in debt and if they are making money. A few clicks on Google Finance is all it takes! It is unfortunate that "sexy" growth stocks like Apple are often the ones most promoted in the media -- I actually think it's wiser to seek out dividend paying stocks that will pay you an income as long as you own them. Many utility stocks, for instance, routinely yield 4 to 5 percent in dividends alone per year even now, and capital appreciation is also possible. They also often offer direct buy programs which enable you to entirely circumvent brokerage fees. While 401Ks and other retirement plans can offer something of a safety net if you have access to them, I tend to think workers should invest on their own as well -- you definitely will need money for retirement, at least if you live that long, but you will also need money during your periods of work and especially unemployment. Tax deferment is sometimes overrated in my view.

Many would argue that savings, because they are more reliable and often government-insured, make for a better personal safety net. Unfortunately, though, savings are quite poor at providing an income, especially when interest rates are as low as they are now. (Granted, when interest rates are low debtors also have fewer expenses, but since so many debtors have high interest debt these days that impact is less apparent.) For instance, I get a little over one percent return per year on my savings account, and I only get that much because I shop around for banks. I think it's important to have reliable money on hand and you should never put everything into a risky venture, but one percent is probably not going to keep you afloat unless you're very rich indeed. Inevitably, if unemployed, you'll have to dig deep into the principal and your return from your savings would continue to drop so your situation will only grow steadily worse over time. That's not even mentioning the hazard of inflation which can make your savings gradually worth less over time -- it's not entirely irrational to not save and to borrow heavily when you account for government monetary policy.

Having more owners would change the world. More small businesses would mean more competition for mega-corporations. Had there been more small car companies like Tesla Motors, I'm not so sure GM and Chrysler would have gotten that bailout after all. After those irresponsible giants had crashed to the ground, a bevy of new car companies might have emerged to employ the newly unemployed auto workers and engineers. OK, that's not such a great example because starting a car company requires a huge amount of investment...but at least it's topical. Still, widespread competition in every industry is the best prescription for avoiding bailouts. Having more individual stock owners would shift the balance of financial power a little further away from huge financial institutions (who are currently the main owners of stock). Individuals who trade actively or own dividend paying stocks will have an income apart from their work and savings, enabling them to avoid taking on so much debt and giving them something to fall back on when they lose their jobs.

I know there are those who would say that there is simply no way that the average person is cut out to be an owner of a small business or capable of managing a portfolio of stocks. That's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- people are petrified of the risks they don't know (while failing to see the risks all around them, like that of accumulating too much debt or relying too much on a job) so when they do take a chance on something new they tend to panic and lose everything. Average people are capable of many things, however, and receive much less credit than they deserve. It seems to be generally accepted that most people can learn to read and write. If they go very far at all into the educational system, they'll also learn something of algebra. Outside of school, most of them will work at various jobs and have children. Owning a business or a stock is a serious pursuit, but it is a lot easier than raising children in my view. So I firmly do believe that a person who is willing to put the time in to learn can be a successful owner or part owner. Buying stocks randomly or starting a business that sells products only you yourself would be interested in is indeed dangerous, but I doubt you would do either thing if you researched a little before you acted.

Do the Libertarian Party and the Green Party Need Each Other to Thrive?

Breaking the two-party system in the United States is something that is much talked about, but no third party seems even close to emerging as a major player in American politics. What the Democratic and Republican parties do so well is to create big tents that draw people with myriad views together. Don't let anyone tell you differently: both parties ARE diverse. The Democrats bring together advocates for the poor, abortion rights supporters, and environmentalists. The Republican Party includes religious conservatives primarily concerned with social issues, fiscal conservatives primarily concerned with economic issues, and libertarians primarily concerned with individual liberty. Each constituent group (and there are of course many, many more than those I just named) would ideally prefer a party more aligned with their interests, but their fear of the other party binds them to the Big Party that they must share even with some of their ideological rivals.

Strategic voting is an entirely rational phenomenon. If a normally Democratic voter defects to the Green Party, the Republicans are indeed in a stronger position...but if a normally Republican voter defects to the Libertarian Party, the Democrats gain. Of course, not every Green or Libertarian vote benefits one of the big parties -- often people who vote third party are disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats -- but strategic voting is probably the main reason Democratic voters stay Democrat and Republican voters stay Republican. They figure they're better off with a party that might not represent them too well but at least isn't diametrically opposed to their position. This places other parties in a tough position: if they can't win over many regular voters, they're stuck recruiting the entirely disaffected and unregistered who may be uninterested in politics or have much more cynical attitudes about voting.

There is an alternative path, but it would require a strange alliance. Two of the leading alternative parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, appeal to markedly different constituencies. With its focus on environmentalism, social justice, and central planning, the Green Party shares many of the same ideals as many current Democratic voters. Because of its focus on liberty, noninterventionism, and smaller government, the Libertarian Party would be a natural home for many current Republicans. Neither alternative party could quite accommodate all those in the big tent of either the Democratic or Republican Party; for instance, pro-war or pro-nuclear power Democrats probably wouldn't feel welcome in the Green Party while social conservatives and anti-immigration advocates would likely feel uncomfortable in the Libertarian Party. However, wide swathes of both major parties could find a home among either the Greens or Libertarians. To defeat strategic voting, both Republican and Democratic voters need to have an alternative; thus, viable Green and Libertarian candidates need to compete strongly in the same races. Instead of there being a situation where a vote cast for a third party will automatically benefit the other big party, each voter will be conscious of the multiple competing options and feel more free to vote their conscience. The only way to take down the two party system is to weaken both of the two parties that dominate it.

Forging such an alliance in a way that could actually make a difference would be tricky. After all, each person has only have one vote -- a Libertarian can't send a "booster vote" towards a Green candidate while also supporting a candidate who represents his or her interests. However, the party organizations can (and have in the past) work together on matters like ballot access. Libertarian and Green donors could also support the other party and its candidates financially so they could better reach out to their potential voters. This, however, would require a great deal of nose-holding on both sides. There might be some level of agreement between the parties on certain issues, like the Iraq War, but in general they favor opposing approaches: the Greens want to use government as a vehicle to create a better world whilst the Libertarians want government to free each individual to create a better world. The Libertarians are as skeptical of the good will of the government as the Greens are of the good will of the individual. The potential rewards of such an alliance, however, could be vast...and it might be the quickest way both parties could emerge as serious elements of the American political landscape.

Is Big Government Inherently a Bully?

One reason conservatives and libertarians are wary of any expansion of government in size or scope is that they fear that this growth cannot be controlled. While it can be argued that government involvement in expanding access to health care or higher education might be in some ways quite positive, the believer in small government often fears the unintended consequences of such intervention. I think there certainly is some truth in the idea that the more the government takes on, the more prestige and practical power it gains. When a government provides you with many services, the social contract does change -- you do effectively "owe" your government much more. Take the example of a very sick person in a state with government-provided health care: it's quite likely that this person will not pay the equivalent in taxes what he or she receives in medical services. The more people that "get more than they put in", the stronger the moral position the government has to demand more from its citizens. It's probably no coincidence that so-called "nanny states" like Germany and Norway still continue the practice of peacetime conscription which has been abolished in most of the developed world due to popular opinion and for the sake of efficiency. Still, other nanny states certainly have left conscription by the wayside. While John F. Kennedy urged people to think about what they could do for their government (OK, he said "country"...), in a democracy citizens still have the upper hand in determining just how much they owe their government.

Democracy clearly can have a moderating effect on Big Government's ability to bully. Unfortunately, sometimes democracy is an empowering force for bullies in the majority to force their will on and restrict the freedom of the minority -- even when that does happen, though, there is at least hope that such bullying can be reversed by a more enlightened voting population in the future. The situation of big government without democracy tends to be worse for freedom as it is harder for the people to affect policy. Take Cuba as an example. It is neither the most murderous nor the most repressive regime in the world, but it exerts a great deal of control over its population and the Castros have traditionally taken a particularly hard line against political dissent in their 50+ years in power. Nonetheless, Cuba has its fair share of admirers who point to its universal health care (indeed, one of its leading exports is its doctors: Venezuela's health care system for one would struggle to function without them) and educational systems (Cuba's literacy rate is 99.8%!) as examples to the world. Indeed, online one can barely say a bad word against Cuba without a defender or five cropping up and essentially arguing that the lack of basic freedoms doesn't matter so long as you have government-provided basic services. Cuba's official motto could be, "You've got health care...now shut up!" as that is what the Cuban government seems to expect of its citizens. Raul Castro has even blamed the recent death of a Cuban dissident on the United States -- this argument seems to suggest that no one in Cuba could possibly disapprove of the government and thus any and all dissidents must be agents of the United States. This is a ridiculous stance...any student of history or of politics could tell you that even the world's most perfect possible government would still inspire dissent. It's simply a part of human nature. Still, I smile as I imagine stunned Cuban officials' reactions to the discovery of the existence of an authentic Cuban dissenter: "But....he had HEALTH CARE! How could he possibly dissent?!" At least in Cuba the government does do something besides bullying -- others get all the repression but none of the services.

Frankly, at the end of the day I'm not sure a free country really exists in this big world of ours. What we tend to see even in the best countries to live in is a great deal of freedom in certain areas of life but much less freedom in other areas...no country I've studied quite reaches the point of being reasonably free (as in "it has no unreasonable restrictions on personal freedom") according to my point of view. The United Kingdom, to give an example, is far freer than the United States for the gambler and the sports better. Irrational laws still make innocent pastimes like playing poker online or betting on the outcome of a basketball game technically illegal for most Americans though such laws, like all irrational laws, tend to be ignored rather freely. Although the USA is often not placed in the nanny state category (unfortunately, I think it probably belongs there), it is in fact the epitome of nanny state thinking to seek to prevent people from using their own money as they see fit. Anti-gambling laws are all about protecting people from themselves...though admittedly corporate interests have certainly also played a very strong role in determining the legal status of sports betting. The UK is blessed with a more sensible legal view of online gambling and sports betting so it is the freer country in this respect. On the other hand, the UK's libel laws have frequently been accused of having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and of the press because it is so easy to bring such cases to trial and win (a decent overview of the situation there can be viewed here). Even science journalists with a nose for cold, hard facts have suffered as a result of the UK's libel regime. The USA is the freer nation if you want to speak and print your mind because its legal framework is better equipped to protect speech. All things considered, I do prefer to live in the United States rather than the United Kingdom, but I think I'd only be kidding myself if I tried to make the argument that Americans are significantly freer than the British. Freer in certain ways, yes, but the Brits can say the very same thing. In truth, our very differences showcase our fundamental similarities.

If a small government, fair laws, and robust business and nonprofit sectors represent the best path to freedom and a high quality of life, a big representative government that is nonetheless limited in order to protect individual liberties seems like a reasonable compromise with reality. It's perfectly possible, for instance, to legally place the responsibility of providing specific services (not necessarily monopolizing them) like health care and education on the state but just as explicitly protect freedom of speech. In practice, it unfortunately seems far easier for government to expand than to limit itself -- politicians loathe ceding any of their power to legislate. Perhaps that tendency will require more explicit constitutions that protect more freedoms (and leave no wiggle room for politicians or a momentarily oppressive majority to exploit) in the future.

Still Controversial After All These Years

Like many other Americans, my stance on the issue of drugs has changed a lot over time. I tended to support existing drug laws when I was younger because I thought of them as guardians of public health; I've softened my stance as I've come to realize criminalizing drugs punishes self-abusers more than it protects society or helps individuals. Indeed, a good argument can be made that society is actually very much hurt by drug laws in that they ensure that drug users, who are not always a danger to anyone but themselves, occupy prison space while dangerous criminals like rapists, child abusers, and burglars seem to frequently be set free prematurely in the name of prison overpopulation and often go on to recommit the same sort of antisocial crimes again and ruin more lives. I'm still not sure that all-out legalization is the way to go -- many illegal drugs really are dangerous, more dangerous than would generally be accepted for food and drink products, so it's possible total legalization might send the message that they are safer than they really are (of course a counterargument to that is that the very illegality of drugs makes them even more dangerous than they need to be because of the lack of legal means to hold narcotics manufacturers accountable for their products) -- but I do think a thorough rethink on the issue of drugs is definitely in order across the board.

With that said, it continues to surprise me how controversial every little aspect of drug policy is and how difficult it is for changes to be implemented. Take the issue of medical marijuana, for instance. Marijuana isn't exactly a health product across the board...it certainly doesn't seem to be good for your lungs or heart...but it is more readily comparable to tobacco and alcohol in its negative effects than to, say, crystal meth. Of course, a lot of people would like to make tobacco and alcohol illegal so that's not necessarily a winning argument for legalizing marijuana in itself! However, the use of marijuana or its constituent products for medical purposes is no joke -- it has serious potential as a pain reliever, for instance, and can help AIDS and cancer patients recover from the side effects of the aggressive drugs they use to treat their conditions. Indeed, the medical value of cannabinoids is acknowledged even by American regulators who have approved Marinol and Cesamet as prescription drugs. The clamor for legalized medical marijuana has continued, however, with critics contending that Marinol and Cesamet are not as effective or as convenient as the "real stuff" because they do not contain the same mix of healthful cannabinoids and are more expensive, among other issues. Even if you do think Marinol-type products ought to be enough for anyone, it should still be easy to acknowledge there is a difference between a sick person using marijuana to treat their condition or soothe their pain and a purely recreational user; isn't the whole theoretical basis for drug laws that they protect society from dangerous substances that cause harm? If the substance is clearly helping rather than harming in some cases, doesn't that suggest a clear legal distinction might be in order? Yet it still seems an uphill battle: Attorney General Eric Holder last year suggested that federal medical marijuana raids in states allowing the use of medical marijuana might be coming to an end, with the seeming implication that state laws would determine medical marijuana's legality in the future and state law enforcement would take over more of the burden of enforcing the laws, but the DEA so far has continued to raid and assuredly will continue to do so unless more significant policy changes occur at the federal level. This is why I say everything about drug policy is difficult...even what seems like it should be the least controversial drug-related matter cannot be resolved.

That said, marijuana remains controversial among the public as well. Though support for full legalization continues to tick up, a majority still want marijuana to remain illegal. However, when it comes to medical marijuana the story changes dramatically: a whopping 81% think it should be legal according to a recent ABC News poll! If we accept these numbers as even remotely close to the truth, then there is a definite disconnect between citizens and their governments both on a state and federal level. Part of the issue is that the wheels of the government roll slowly -- just think of some of the currently serving legislators who have served for decades. When they were originally elected, the public stance on marijuana was much harsher and medical marijuana had not yet been legitimized by mainstream science. The views of the public have now changed, but these legislators are the same and may understandably reflect a different viewpoint on the issue more common to their demographic (polls indicate that senior citizens are among the most skeptical of any form of marijuana legalization). Another issue is that many who support the legalization of medical marijuana don't care about it enough to vote on the basis of that issue alone. They won't go for Candidate B who agrees with them on legalization rather than Candidate A who doesn't if they like A better in most other respects. I've noticed that many of those who vigorously advocate for the legalization of marijuana have never used the stuff once in their lives -- they may sound passionate in their arguments, but at the end of the day the issue doesn't affect them that much directly. Frankly, I'm one of those people...I wouldn't ever use marijuana unless I was in great pain and the laws of the time permitted my use of it unambiguously. I doubt it will be people like me who end up changing the laws: it'll instead be the sick who are fighting for the dignity of a life with less pain and the doctors, nurses, and caregivers who see the medical benefits of cannabis firsthand. They've got a lot of work to do in Washington and many state capitals; I'll cheer them on from afar.

Can President Obama Succeed and the Democratic Party Struggle?

The political momentum at the moment seems to strongly favor a Republican comeback in the 2010 congressional elections. A series of election wins (including Scott Brown's shocking Senate victory in Massachusetts) and strong poll numbers for Republican candidates in many races suggest that the Democrats face an uphill battle to avoid losing seats. At the same time, however, the same polls tell us President Obama remains more popular than either party or Congress. Could a Democratic fall in 2010 not necessarily place the president in an uncomfortable position for 2012? I think that's quite possible.

It's easy to see why the public is disillusioned with the Democrats at the moment. Their major legislative victory was the stimulus package which, to believe the rhetoric from Washington, saved the nation from another Great Depression but failed to lower unemployment to acceptable levels. The other two major items on the year's agenda, health care and climate change, were stalled in the Senate and remain unresolved. The Democrats, including the president, must cling to the stimulus as an example of their success -- they have some numbers to back them up, but I think it's asking too much to expect the public to rejoice just because things aren't any worse when they still remain really bad. The stimulus also wasn't originally sold as primarily a damage control rather than a growth package, hence the infamous claim by two Obama's economic advisers that unemployment would not exceed 8% provided that the stimulus was passed. I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats would still call the stimulus package a success regardless of what actually is going on with the economy -- they don't have much choice right now politically. Cap and trade is perhaps not popular enough to have ever been a major winning issue (especially given all the global warming related controversy since Climategate), but health care reform is another story. However, the great health care debate of '09 took some weird turns. I thought health care was one of President Obama's winning issues as a presidential candidate, but his message in 2008 was different than what was heard in 2009. Unlike Obama, many other Democrats never even had qualms about the morality of forcing Americans to buy insurance and that idea -- rather than reigning in insurers whose practices and prices Candidate Obama blamed -- became one of the central aspects of the reform debate. While regulations on insurers certainly can affect the consumer/voter, they have the virtue of being indirect. Mandates on the consumer, however, are as direct a law as can be, and it was a massive oversight on the part of the Democrats to think that voters would accept a mandate lying down...it's a political law that it's easier to accept stuff that affects other people or institutions rather than yourself. The Dems probably thought people who already had health insurance of some kind (and they are the majority) wouldn't care about such a mandate, but even if you have something you don't necessarily want to be forced to have it...I've never driven a car without car insurance, but I nonetheless feel very warmly about New Hampshire just because they don't have a car insurance mandate. The hysteria whipped up by the GOP about a potential government takeover in health care didn't exactly make things easier for the Democrats, either.

To the extent that President Obama has been linked to the Democrats' legislative failures he has indeed been damaged and the fall in his popularity reflects that. However, it's nothing unusual for presidents to lose popularity after their first years...if anything, it is de rigueur. I think he has a strong chance to win in 2012 if he plays to his strengths. Obama fits the presidential role in many of the same ways that Clinton and Reagan did and the Bushes did not (I doubt GWB would've won a second term had 9/11 not been such a game-changing event, not to mention the controversy of whether he really won that first term or not). He remains an articulate and interesting speaker -- perhaps a little overexposed but nonetheless an excellent orator. He comes across as both charming and intelligent and is a good representative of America overseas...given that George W. Bush's verbal stumbling has become the stuff of legend on YouTube, it's hard not to notice an improvement in that respect. Foreign policy and military matters are much more the domain of the president than health care, and Obama has succeeded in living up to his pledge to draw back in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan while pursuing a more conciliatory diplomatic policy towards much of the rest of the world. Unlike Reagan, he doesn't have the burden of being expected to act tough while confronting a world power so he has had the freedom to play a cat and mouse game with both Russia and China, bending on some issues and standing firm on others. The problems he faces overseas are lingering ones that can stew for years to come: how to get out completely of Afghanistan and Iraq, how to ease Iran's nuclear ambitions, how to influence China to change its economic policies. If he has to face a foreign policy crisis of the like of 9/11, that will be a severe test, but it may very well never happen.

For all the talk of hope and change in 2008, President Obama's greatest advantage over his fellow Democrats may well be that he is a far better politician than most in either party. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and much of the rest of the Democratic caucus seem strangely plastic and awkward in comparison. The Democrats don't have a deep bench in Congress, and the Republicans seem to have recruited more exciting challengers than the Democrats have so far. Marco Rubio and Peter Schiff get my attention...Martha Coakley, not so much. Granted, such "interesting" challengers often lose to establishment candidates in primaries because of moderate voters (after all, the Republican caucus isn't all that interesting for the most part either!), but I don't think Democrats can afford to be boring in 2010. Obama, though, just needs to campaign like he did in 2008 and use his organization wisely to have a decided edge over most likely 2012 candidates. He also will have a couple more years to really define his presidency. Frankly, he may look even better in contrast to a uncooperative, opposition Congress -- gridlock is a highly underrated route to prosperity though political party members absolutely loathe it.

Term Limits and Democracy

I have a gut reaction against the idea of absolute term limits. The fundamental idea behind them has always seemed to me to be anti-democratic: aren't term limits considered to be a positive limitation because there is this presumption that the uninformed electorate will keep electing the same bozos over and over again? What's the point of democracy, though, if the people aren't allowed to pick who they want? Maybe they really like those bozos, much more so than they would like the next bozo who wants the office. Every now and then, the person who keeps getting elected might not even be a bozo but rather a transformative personality who really is making things better. It surely cannot be beneficial to replace a superior officeholder with someone not as good because of some arbitrary term restriction.

Gut feelings notwithstanding, watching Latin American politics from afar has given me a slightly different take on term limits. Latin America has historically been plagued by dictators and foreign interference -- it has not been a place where robust democracies have flourished. Perhaps in large part due to that history, term limits are a common feature of electoral politics in the region. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela had to fight one of the biggest battles of his political career to simply earn the right to run again for president in 2012 and beyond. His first attempt to amend the Venezuelan constitution by popular referendum failed -- his second succeeded. On the other hand, Manuel Zelaya's move to try to end the system of presidential term limits on Honduras proved disastrous: a military coup, supported by the Honduran Supreme Court, removed Zelaya from power. A subsequent election elected a new president in Honduras which the world seems to be grudgingly accepting. This hasn't dissuaded Alvaro Uribe, president of Colombia and political opposite of Chavez and Zelaya, from flirting with the idea of running for a third term -- depending on what the courts decide, Colombians may get the chance to amend their constitution and allow Uribe to run again. If nothing else, term limits have certainly brought a lot of political drama to Latin America. Even though a number of popular leaders have been able to adjust these limits, they remain in force in many countries. There's no doubt that there remains something decidedly anti-democratic about them, but I have to admit they are doing their job...they have made it much harder for even a highly popular elected leader to become a dictator. Term limits are like a hurdle which any would-be tyrant must cross at some point. They can't use repeated, controlled elections to give their governments a whiff of legitimacy. That isn't to say that Chavez, Zalaya, and Uribe are all would-be dictators just waiting for their chance to subvert democracy...it's just that if that does happen to be what they are term limits will be remembered as having not made their lives any easier.

Given all the allegations of voter fraud swirling about lately (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine), I wonder if term limits aren't inherently valuable as a hedge against electoral fraud. At least it makes it more difficult for power to be concentrated in a single individual -- at least someone new must run and be vested with at least nominal power in the government even if someone else behind the scenes really controls things. I still feel reluctant to suggest that the rest of the world follow Latin America's lead, but I do realize now that there is more merit in term limits than initially meets the eye. It's amazing that George Washington was essentially able to set a precedent for American presidents to not serve any longer than two terms based entirely on the honor system that lasted for a over a century -- eventually, however, someone did come along (FDR) who was willing to break the code, and the voters embraced him all the more for it. I'd definitely like to see more of such honor systems: more people should be approaching politics as a civic duty with the expectation that they will happily leave office to pursue other things after completing a reasonable term of service.

The Government Vs Private Charity

Modern governments manage services that in the past would have been entirely operated by the private sector, services which political philosophers would never have imagined would be connected to government. From health care to arts funding to scientific research, governments do it all, and sometimes they do things quite well. This poses an interesting question: does government occupy a particular domain or can it literally undertake any project that it wishes? Is there an optimal space for government to occupy or are such limits unnecessary and perhaps hurtful to society? By depending so much on government, are we missing out on the benefits offered by the private sector?

There are definitely spheres of activity that I consider should be occupied by the government alone. In particular, all areas connected to the law are governmental responsibilities in my view. The three branches of the American government are all connected to the law: the legislative branch writes laws, the executive branch executes laws, and the judicial interprets laws. I see no reason to think privatized police forces or courts would deliver better justice despite how flawed their public counterparts can be. For profit institutions always tend to cater towards their better paying customers (which would obviously lead to unequal justice) while nonprofit legal institutions might struggle to survive given the often antagonistic relationship between citizen and state. It also makes sense for war to be the domain of government given that it is always effectively waged on a nation-state level; Mexico might say it is declaring war only on Military Inc. of California, but the moment its troops march across the border or its planes start bombing everyone in the way is in danger. Perhaps most importantly, laws and wars have the power to affect every citizen's life -- surely each citizen deserves an opportunity to help determine the laws and decide when to go to war. Ineffective as it sometimes is, voting does give each citizen a meager voice in democratic countries. Theoretically, there is perhaps nothing that couldn't be decoupled from what we think of as a government, but allowing the government to control some basic functions is highly convenient and is an experiment that has been tested again and again for thousands of years. However, it's certainly true that some services have become quite traditionally associated with government that aren't really core government responsibilities at all...postal services are an example. If nothing else, the examples of such services show that governments are capable of performing many functions -- the question remains if that is a desirable thing or not.

When it comes to services, the key factor that tends to separate the public sector and the private sector is how they are funded. Public services are usually funded by force via taxation; private services are funded either by paying customers or voluntary contributions from the charitable. There are hybrid services, of course -- the United States Postal Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are run like corporations and are theoretically self-sustaining but are still considered part of the government. I tend to favor privatization because I believe people generally have the right to spend their money as they wish...public services funded by taxes take away that granular level of choice in spending though presumably voting citizens still have a voice in what services are provided and to what extent they are funded. Because of the existence of consumer and donor choice, private services are rarely offered by only one provider -- there is competition for funding which encourages both quality and affordability as service providers seek to outdo one another. Government services, however, tend to be monopolies because they do not have to fight for funding from countless individual sources. Public services can improve in quality and become more affordable, but only through good oversight...there is no equivalent to the market's invisible guiding hand save perhaps in some extreme cases the ire of the public. Of course, all isn't sunshine and light in the private sector either: things can get hairy there when for one reason or another competition doesn't emerge and also when a service is particularly vital -- it's the latter situation that I particularly want to discuss in this post.

As I see it, there will always be a need for free health care and education. It's true that competition in these sectors can bring prices down, but at the end of the day there'll always be people without a penny in their pocket who need medical services and there'll always be people without a patron who need education. The default option around the developed world seems to be for government to provide these free services to those who need them. The United States has received a lot of global criticism of late for not providing universal health care coverage to its citizens, but yet government does fund an enormous amount of health care even in the United States: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Indian Health Service, health benefits for state and federal employees, etc and public education is universal. All in all, I think this is rather an unfortunate state of affairs because there is such a level of dependence on government for these vital services even in the richest countries. I have a long-term goal to at least contribute as much money to health care charities as I spend on health care services (including insurance) for myself, but the truth is health care charities are nowhere near as developed as they need to be in order to be a major player in the health care industry. I believe strongly in supporting free clinics and charitable hospitals, but there are no local institutions of the type I can support -- it's not that I'm not happy to support institutions around the country that do good work, but it bothers me that there is no alternative to for-profit (and frequently government-funded) health care in my area and so many other areas. Free private schools are even harder to track down. That such alternatives SHOULD exist seems like a no-brainer to me, but it makes me wonder if there isn't enough collective will to provide these free charitable services on a wide scale. This seems hard to believe given the great successes of private charities in other endeavors and given that health care and education are such universally needed services, but it's even harder to ignore reality.

Given the need for free vital services and the lack of success of private charity in providing these services, government involvement seems inevitable. Indeed, I have a hard time opposing it -- it's better for government to pay for or even run health care than for people to suffer and die unnecessarily. However, I can't help but feel society has failed by having to rely on government force to provide vital services that could certainly be performed by the private sector. The likely penalties are harsh: limited competition between institutions, high taxes, government influence on treatment options and school curriculums...but what can be done? Perhaps we've already laid our bed and have no choice but to lie in it for now.

The Vexing Problem of Education

Education is one of those issues that politicians seem to love to simplify. They like to focus on one thing and act like that everything will fall into place if that one policy is implemented. For some, the problems of education are all related to funding -- if you pay teachers enough and provide schools with enough resources, learning will happen. Others focus on accountability issues which essentially places the responsibility of education squarely on the shoulders of teachers and administrators -- they believe that the best teachers and the best administrators will definitely deliver good educational outcomes much like a good painter produces good paintings. Still others think public schools have failed and parents need more educational options and so they support vouchers to enable more students to attend private schools. I think all of these points of view are correct to one extent or another, but I suspect that no matter how much is spent on public schools, how much teachers and administrators are held accountable, and how many school vouchers are issued, education will still remain a problem. The process of education is deeply complex and filled with innumerable players that must cooperate. A bad teacher may teach badly, but an uninterested student is also likely to learn badly regardless of instructor. A student with a rough home life walks into the door with disadvantages, but so does a teacher whose meager salary does not pay her bills. I think of education as being like a ladder: one bad rung can greatly impede a student's progress to the top. Still, it's impossible to create ideal conditions for every student. What should be done?

Virtually every reform will bring about bad consequences as well as good. Upping the funding to schools, for instance, can make education a more desirable field to enter and can provide students with more learning opportunities (computer and chemistry and robotics labs, for instance), but it strains already troubled state and local budgets and may not be sustainable for the long term. If the federal government picks up more of the funding gap, that is just another stressor on the much beleaguered federal budget. It's not like education spending is all that elastic either -- no one wants to provide students with a worse education than previous generations of students received so shutting down labs, not buying new computers when they are needed, and paying teachers less are some of the toughest fiscal decisions that can be made. Furthermore, throwing money around freely tends to create bloat rather than efficiency. Focusing on accountability would seemingly do the opposite in that it would lead to more efficiency: teachers and administrators would strive for excellence to hold on to their jobs and the best, rather than the longest employed or most well connected, would be most rewarded. However, this mindset seems to suggest that there are no bad students, just bad educators, which in my view is obviously incorrect. Past the early grades, most students have access to multiple ways to learn ranging from textbooks to libraries to the Internet. If they don't know something, they surely deserve some of the blame themselves. I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever been inside a school has noticed that not every student pays equal attention to even the most gifted and creative teacher. That's not even mentioning the individual circumstances for each student that might make it difficult for him or her learn. It's not fair to hold teachers accountable for factors beyond their control, but to a certain extent all educational outcomes ARE beyond their control. They have an important role, but they can't do it all themselves. Inevitably, some in education will be rewarded not for being better but rather for having more learning-focused groups of students at their disposal for whatever reason. Meanwhile, some teachers will get sick of all the scrutiny and seek another profession that will appreciate their talents better. Vouchers encourage competition among schools, which is fantastic in the way it allows for comparisons in educational outcomes among similar groups of students. If students from single-parent households are exceeding in one school but not in another, then there might well be something worth looking into there. However, just as public schools never get tired of public funding, private schools will undoubtedly develop an insatiable appetite for vouchers. Once again, easy money will lead to bloat and the lines between the public and private school systems will blur...not necessarily a great recipe for "competition." Inevitably, governments and private schools will butt heads -- central planners will strive for more influence on the education they are funding while the schools will attempt to remain as independent as possible. The process of education may well take a back seat to politics which benefits no one.

Personally, I think there should be something of a paradigm shift in how we approach education...actually, make that two shifts. I don't regard No Child Left Behind as a great piece of legislature, but I still think the title would be quite good if it were just slightly changed to No Person Left Behind. Education shouldn't just be about children. Of course, it's a good thing for children to learn as much as possible during their formative years. Sometimes, though, learning won't happen, and we have to accept that. That doesn't mean that the people who passed through the education system unscathed should be regarded as some kind of refuse to be discarded and forgotten in favor of more promising raw material. More and more people seem to be entering higher education later in life now, in no small thanks to the recession -- that's a great thing because a dynamic educational system should always be open to learners of any age. Children will always be left behind no matter what educational reforms are enacted...I think it's important that as adults they'll be able to make up for lost time if they have the desire to do so. However, I rarely hear any politician ask if the educational system is welcoming enough for adults and suited to their needs. The pathways for adult education do exist, but it's a societal shortcoming that we still see education as kids' stuff. Another big paradigm shift that is occurring as we speak is the result of the information revolution. Technology is going to change education in innumerable ways in the future, and it's already making it easier for those "left behind" kids to catch up. The Internet has democratized learning like no other invention; not even the printing press is quite comparable. As we speak, people from around the world are viewing lectures online for free taught by university professors at prestigious institutions -- as time goes on, more and more educational resources will be available for free to all comers. Formal and structured education will undoubtedly still be very important, but it too will be able to take more and more advantage of technology. Flu outbreaks and snowstorms perhaps won't be such disruptions when students can routinely listen to their teachers via webcam and complete assignments online. The best teachers cannot physically be in every single classroom, but no sincere teacher would mind sharing the stage for a few minutes with some brilliant lecturer who wishes to share his or her wisdom with the students of the nation or world...technology makes the transfer of knowledge so much easier. Perhaps the most valuable information students of the future will pick up in school in addition to the three Rs will be computer literacy. That skill is what they will need to learn over the course of their lifetimes, far beyond the date they graduate. That said, it's another simplification to presume the Internet will solve all our problems -- technology is a superb equalizer in education, but frankly if we were all perfect self-motivated learners libraries would have been sufficient to turn us all into polymaths long ago. Small steps like integrating technology with education and encouraging older students, however, may have a bigger impact in the long run than broad and massive reforms.

Should Incumbents Be Challenged?

I'm not really into the whole team mentality of politics. Why should anyone get excited that Candidate A has been elected just because he happens to be a member of Party B, just like you? If what's important to you isn't important to A, then his affiliation with B doesn't really mean all that much. Nonetheless, it seems like people who are into politics routinely cheer on tired old incumbents whose views only match their own tangentially just because they're on the right team. This attitude only serves to empower career politicians and weakens democracy.

Democracy, as I see it, is fundamentally about choice. Because everyone has a voice, each person gets to have a measure of input when it comes to the policies of their government either directly and indirectly. If we can't choose among various points of view, though, our representation becomes more and more indirect and limited. A major problem in the United States (and probably most other countries with two party systems) is that neither party takes the opposing view on some issues so that there is no escaping this "default" view no matter how you vote. I'm not just talking about fringe issues here, either: the Iraq War resolutions, though controversial, drew bipartisan support in Congress.

When incumbents aren't challenged in their party's primary, there is only room for one Democratic or Republican voice. While political party affiliation isn't entirely useless as an indicator for policy viewpoints, I don't think voters in either party are being well-served by not being allowed a choice. The Democrat who supports the legalization of marijuana or the Republican who wants the budget to be balanced shouldn't be told to put their feelings aside and just vote for the establishment candidate because he or she has already been elected in the past. These voters might well vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils in the general election, but to ask them to forgo meaningful participation even in their own party's primaries seems entirely too cruel.

On a practical level, it makes sense for the political parties to support their incumbents as long as you assume the whole point of a political party is to win elections. An unchallenged incumbent focuses his or her resources and political capital on winning the ultimate prize, the general election. No primary competition means no in-fighting; the disaffected voters will just stay home until it comes time for them to do their job and vote for the lesser evil once again. If, on the other hand, political parties are supposed to have some responsibility to stand up for the wishes and values of ALL of their members, then challengers should be welcomed not as traitors to the party cause but rather as defenders of democracy.

Secession's Bad Name

Sometimes the success (or lack thereof) of an idea has less to do with the merits of an idea and more to do with the people who espouse it. We might reason that "better" ideas are embraced by "better" people, but that's only true to a degree. There's little reason to trust a doctor or a scientist's point of view on politics implicitly, for instance, though they might be brilliant in their specific niches. Perhaps the most dangerous thing for an idea is for it to become associated with disreputable people or organizations. Undoubtedly communism has gone out of vogue less because of anything that Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels actually wrote and more because what dictators like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong actually did while in power. You can certainly be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and not believe in mass murder, but it's difficult for any movement to survive being taken over by evil on such a scale.

In the United States, secessionism is also a severely tainted political ideology. I think it's fair to say that Americans are opposed to secession by default largely because they are opposed to the practice of slavery. Secession is still viewed through the lens of the Civil War; secessionism as an idea still stinks of the Confederacy. On the other hand, many Americans who are opposed to secession by default quite avidly support the idea of a Palestinian state or of a Free Tibet which are essentially secessionist movements; neither is it unusual for an American to believe the American colonists were justified in breaking away from Britain while at the same time refusing to seriously consider the prospect of a state legally breaking free of the United States.

As a general rule, I think people should have the right of self-determination. So, I tend to be "pro-secession" to the extent that I think there ought to be political mechanisms in place to allow people to break away from the state if there is a widespread desire to do so. It shouldn't be easy to secede, but it also shouldn't be impossible. I think it's healthy when Quebecois are allowed to vote to decide if they want to stay a part of Canada or forge ahead on their own -- they should have the right to make that decision. If the Catalonians, Scots, Tibetans, or Uighurs want to have their own nations, I also see no reason why they shouldn't. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that sometimes people will seek secession for less than noble reasons. For the most part, today's secession movements around the world seem to be tied to preserving a culture, language, or religion -- they are motivated by the desire to protect some of the most basic human rights. If we accept that all people have the right to self-determination, though, we have to accept that secession will sometimes lead to bad consequences. I would never claim that the Civil War was entirely motivated by slavery, but undoubtedly one of the consequences of secession would have been a continuation of the practice of legal slavery in the southern states, at least for a time. It's hardly surprising that China attempts to brush aside calls for Tibetan independence by villifying the feudalism of old Tibet -- the state is trying to argue that Tibetans shouldn't have the right to self-determination because they don't know what's good for them and want to go backwards. If you truly believe in self-determination as a concept, however, you also believe that people should have the freedom to make mistakes.

Many also oppose secessionism for purely practical reasons. Without a doubt, smaller nations tend to be more vulnerable to invasion. While individual areas like Venice and Genoa and Bavaria lost tremendous influence by the unification of Italy and Germany, these massive states became military powers in their own right, much more able to defend themselves against attack as well as perpetrate attacks on other nations. If every city in the world suddenly became free tomorrow, there might well be a flowering of culture and commerce as each city developed internally, but as soon as two cities formed a confederation the trend towards incorporation by force or coercion would likely begin anew. Additionally, secessionists, often motivated by pure emotion, don't always consider political matters like access to sea ports or land barriers that will surely help determine the future success of the nation they are trying to form when they are in the process of fighting for freedom. As I see it, these practical concerns will come to the fore if secessionism is treated less like a criminal act and more of a political issue to be debated. Although the independence-favoring Scottish National Power is narrowly in control of Scotland, Scottish secessionists face an uphill battle in even getting a vote on independence largely because of the reluctance of Scottish voters to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom and no longer be a part of a world power. If even the Scots aren't sure they want to break their union with their historical enemy England of all nations, then I think we can rest assured that legal secessionism is unlikely to create millions of microstates any time soon. At least the Scots can choose their own destiny (or at least influence the process), though, unlike the Uighurs and Tibetans. Amending the constitutions of the world to provide a clear legal path to secession, with definite (difficult but achievable) requirements set in place, would be a positive development in my view. In the United States, the law is already biased against secession, but I sincerely hope that Americans wouldn't treat a modern Texas independence movement (just to give a wild example...) as China treats the Tibetans.

Gauging the Success of the Stimulus

I have a different take on stimulus spending than many. I don't really think it does all that much good to the economy in and of itself -- I think instead that its primary benefit is psychological. Remember, stimulus spending is typically a one shot deal...it is by its very nature not sustainable and even the largest of stimulus packages is going to be small compared to the size of the overall economy. Thus, I think the best stimulus package is the one that is as small as possible yet is still capable of instilling new confidence in the nation's entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers. From this perspective, I felt uneasy about the stimulus package that Congress actually passed and President Obama signed in 2009. I thought it was simply too big and another nail in the coffin for America's finances. After reading the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for myself, my concerns multiplied as much of the spending seemed geared not towards short-term economic growth but rather damage control for public institutions to help them survive the downturn.

As 2010 begins, I think we can see the stimulus bill was rather a mixed bag. It worked fantastically in terms of calming the jitters of investors. The stock market had a fine 2009 and recouped much of its losses suffered during the previous year. That in turn means that publicly listed companies have renewed access to the money raising engine that is the stock market, that large and small stock investors alike are making money, and that retirement accounts are looking much healthier . On the other hand, unemployment remains very high. The country returned to economic growth in the last quarter, but it's rather anemic growth and nothing to get too excited about. Undoubtedly, the ARRA did save many public jobs as state and local governments struggled with budget shortfalls, but the Boston Globe did some fantastic research to expose how flawed some of the jobs numbers reported really were. In many cases, jobs seem not to have really been created but rather retained instead -- in some cases, the money seems to have been downright misused, having been used to give raises to existing employees which hardly seems necessary in this economic climate. The infrastructure spending component of the stimulus has been a downright disappointment; the slow speed in getting these projects off the ground has really limited the effect it has had on unemployment. In fact, that slowness has made me question the value of infrastructure spending as stimulus at all...I'm as big a fan of good roads and strong bridges as anyone, but stimulus spending is supposed to have a speedy impact on the economy.

The fundamental problem with stimulus spending as damage control may be really exposed this year. It's quite possible that state and local governments, still facing revenue shortfalls, will be forced to cut even more jobs after they go through stimulus funds. It would've been far better to have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment at this point even at the expense of many public jobs as governments could easily start hiring again once tax revenues recovered. Instead, it looks like the stimulus may have little lingering effect on the economy and calls for a second stimulus will surely continue to be heard. (I expect any "jobs bill" that gets passed will in effect be a second stimulus even if it isn't called that.)

Ultimately, I feel that the biggest failure of the stimulus is that it didn't quite improve confidence enough. It worked for the stock market, but it didn't encourage people to start businesses or start hiring more workers. Did it need to do more to specifically encourage entrepreneurship or hiring? Maybe...that couldn't have hurt. However, I also think the stimulus package became something of a victim of President Obama's ambitious overall agenda. The debate over health care reform in particular has created a lot of uncertainty; arguably, the specter of cap and trade has created just as much uneasiness in the business community. In a way, it's not even so much the particulars of the proposed legislation that has the chilling effect on the economy -- it's the uncertainty and the fear of what MIGHT be enacted and the tax increases that MIGHT be coming. Had some form of health care and climate change legislation been passed quickly (which I doubt would have been even possible given the fractious political environment), I think the economy might have improved quicker. Instead, we've had lingering, paralyzing uncertainty. Ultimately, I suspect the economy would have fared better had the government focused on it ahead of all other priorities, but Obama and the Democrats didn't want to lose the opportunity to pass what they viewed as very important legislation. What they do in 2010 is going to be interesting to see. It's an election year -- do they dare tackle immigration reform as has been whispered or is this the time to focus squarely on the economy? First, however, they STILL have to finish with health care and cap and trade, though.