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.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)