Learning politics is not going to be easy. To this point, I've focused primarily on the upcoming American presidential elections because presidential candidates talk about specific political issues -- that's accessible to me. Similarly, Aristotle's "Politics" is accessible to me as well because it talks about politics in general. What is not so accessible to me is politics in practice -- that often confuses me. This blog, for better or worse, is intended to document my attempts to learn about politics, and this necessarily means my confusion is going to be documented rather extensively. I'm planning to write a bit more on legislation (this will involve the confusing world of Congressional politics that I have heretofore studiously avoided) in the coming weeks, so expect to see me confused a LOT in the near future! Today I want to talk about a bill I have conflicted views on: the Internet Radio Equality Act.
Recently, some monstrosity called the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) approved a royalty rate hike for Internet radio stations and limited the options Internet radio stations had to pay royalties. This has led to a campaign to save Internet radio conducted by those concerned that some webcasters, especially small webcasters, would be unable to pay the new rates. The Internet Radio Equality Act has been introduced to both the House of Representatives (H.R. 2060) and to the Senate(S. 1353); if passed, it would enable webcasters to choose between paying "0.33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single listener" or "7.5 percent of the revenues received by the provider during that year that are directly related to the provider's digital transmissions of sound recordings." The bill itself is short and easy to read: you can read it here courtesy of GovTrack (I've linked to the text of H.R. 2060). The ramifications of the bill are anything but easy to understand. As an individual who listens to Internet radio, I don't want any royalty rate increases which will push webcasters offline; if that happens, there would be less choice for me. Internet radio is an awesome thing; I think it is the best means to discover new music and to explore obscure musical genres. On the other hand, people (in practice, often organizations) who own the rights to musical works and sound recordings do and should have certain rights regarding how their music can be distributed. If they want to target Internet radio for a royalty increase, should the government refuse them this right any more than it should tell a used car dealer he cannot charge more than a certain price for a certain model of car? Yet it is important to note that the U.S. government was involved deeply even with the royalty hikes: the CRB is a three-member body appointed by the Library of Congress. Ultimately, though, I think the question at issue here is whether government should in this particular case act in the public welfare or let the markets regulate prices in a way roughly similar to how most other markets operate.
One of the most interesting things about the Internet Radio Equality Act is that it has already attracted a varied base of support within Congress. It's hard to believe Dennis Kucinich, Sam Brownback, and Ron Paul agree on anything...but all three are co-sponsors of the Act! Ron Paul certainly is against government intervention in most things -- much more so than me -- so his cosponsorship of H.R. 2060 is especially interesting. I wonder very much if the members of Congress that are cosponsoring the Internet Radio Equality Act have come to the same conclusion that I have: namely, that the motivation behind the rate increases is to kill off small webcasters so that only cooperative giants remain. If the Act makes it out of committee and is passed, I will rejoice as an individual even though I'm not sure I would have voted for it as a member of Congress. If the Act does not pass, then I feel the music industry will reap what it has sown. I don't see myself listening less to the Internet radio of the future, but it is possible I'll be listening more to independent artists who distribute their music freely online instead of to artists signed to small and large record labels.
Recommended reading: Save Net Radio makes a compelling case in favor of the Act and offers information on how you can voice your support for the Act. The CRB has published the proceedings (PDF) which led to the changes that threaten Internet radio; this document is something of a monstrosity which is not easy to follow, but it does give some insight into the rationale of the judges.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
New Hampshire Republican Debate Thoughts
I think that debates naturally encourage even multi-dimensional candidates to overly focus on the single issue that is most important to them because the time each speaker has to make a point is quite limited, but even so I was disappointed in the extremely narrow focus of several of the candidates in the June 5th Republican presidential debate. Previously I criticized Giuliani for running on the terrorism issue to the exclusion of other issues, but he's hardly the only one who attempts to divert as many debate questions as he can to his pet issue. Ron Paul has a boatload of interesting ideas and could contribute a lot more to the race besides being the anti-war Republican. Yes, I see that Paul is playing an important role in creating a debate about the Iraq war, but the Iraq war and the American foreign policy that led to the Iraq war is almost all Paul talked about on Tuesday! Tom Tancredo is obviously focused on immigration -- sometimes he almost looks bored when he has to speak about anything else. Duncan Hunter, of course, is the "defense" candidate. There is more substance to the Giuliani, Paul, and Hunter campaigns than debate watchers might realize to this point -- I strongly recommend visiting their campaign web sites and YouTube to learn more. I haven't quite decided about Tancredo yet -- he might just be a genuine one issue candidate.
I have to give Tancredo and Hunter some credit, though...they were more energetic in this debate than they were in the previous one. Tancredo was incredibly gutsy to suggest that a freeze on ALL immigration might be a good thing. That's definitely not something I hear all the time, but historically America, that great nation of immigrants, has a long tradition of an anti-immigration opposition. It is an amusing fact of history that Tancredo is following in the footsteps of the "Know Nothing" movement of the 19th century. Tancredo was also quite open in detailing his unfriendly relationship with the Bush administration. Disaffected Bush voters might just give him a chance...but I think you'd REALLY need to be against immigration to give your vote to Tancredo. There's no room for the undecided in that camp. Hunter has a tougher road because he is similar to the other candidates in his focus on defense, but in my opionion he came across in the debate as a committed conservative who was more level-headed than Giuliani. I'd rather he have the guns than Giuliani at this point, even if their stance on security and war issues aren't necessarily that dissimilar.
On the other hand, Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson seemed to be lacking in energy for this debate. I think Thompson has at least one very good idea: his idea for Iraq includes an oil wealth distribution plan that includes the federal government, state governments, and individual Iraqis. Letting individual Iraqis in on the action could be a brilliant move. Thompson is hindered a bit because he is not the smoothest speaker around; he gets his ideas across but not elegantly. He is good-humored, but his jokes are hit-and-miss. I have respect for Tommy T., though -- at least he is running a multifaceted campaign. Gilmore has also avoided single issue politics, but he comes across sometimes as a passionless candidate. Passionless, solid, trustworthy conservatism is not reeling in the voters en masse at the moment.
Who won the debate? Mike Huckabee continued to impress me; the guy is charismatic, funny, compassionate, and extremely sharp. Bill Clinton had an uncanny ability to seem both intelligent and caring at the same time -- logos and pathos were in perfect harmony. Huckabee has the same ability, but comes across as more genuine than Bill often did. He's a great debater. John McCain continues to uncompromisingly express his plans for Iraq and immigration, and I thought he did rather well in this debate. His defense of immigration was prettier than a rose: I'm sure even Tancredo must have muttered to himself, "My God, how could I set him up like that?" as McCain ascended to the heavens. However I think most people agree on what McCain's Iraq plan will mean in the short run: more deaths. With more troops on the ground, maybe Iraq can be reined in and become less chaotic. Maybe the flow of ammunition and weaponry can be disrupted. But the end of chaos will be accompanied with the end of lives -- we'll see an acceleration of the war before its end. I'm not sure America really wants victory at any cost in Iraq...I know I don't. People who are willing to look past the surge of deaths in the short run though might just see a rosier future for both Iraq and the United States under McCain. McCain still stands for campaign reform and legislative action as well. I think the "no-death" campaign was also victorious simply because Ron Paul does what he has chosen to do extremely well. Paul keeps hitting the other candidates hard on the Iraq issue; at the end of the day, he's the only one seeking the Republican nomination who will bring the troops home regardless of the consequences. If you have someone you love in Iraq right now, there have to be times when that person is all that matters, overshadowing terrorism and national honor and the good of the Iraqi people and every other reason why the war in Iraq continues. It's hard to say if that point of view is a special selfishness born out of longing and love or, ultimately, sensible self-interest which will, as Paul argues, lead America out of a war that was a mistake from the very beginning.
I have to give Tancredo and Hunter some credit, though...they were more energetic in this debate than they were in the previous one. Tancredo was incredibly gutsy to suggest that a freeze on ALL immigration might be a good thing. That's definitely not something I hear all the time, but historically America, that great nation of immigrants, has a long tradition of an anti-immigration opposition. It is an amusing fact of history that Tancredo is following in the footsteps of the "Know Nothing" movement of the 19th century. Tancredo was also quite open in detailing his unfriendly relationship with the Bush administration. Disaffected Bush voters might just give him a chance...but I think you'd REALLY need to be against immigration to give your vote to Tancredo. There's no room for the undecided in that camp. Hunter has a tougher road because he is similar to the other candidates in his focus on defense, but in my opionion he came across in the debate as a committed conservative who was more level-headed than Giuliani. I'd rather he have the guns than Giuliani at this point, even if their stance on security and war issues aren't necessarily that dissimilar.
On the other hand, Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson seemed to be lacking in energy for this debate. I think Thompson has at least one very good idea: his idea for Iraq includes an oil wealth distribution plan that includes the federal government, state governments, and individual Iraqis. Letting individual Iraqis in on the action could be a brilliant move. Thompson is hindered a bit because he is not the smoothest speaker around; he gets his ideas across but not elegantly. He is good-humored, but his jokes are hit-and-miss. I have respect for Tommy T., though -- at least he is running a multifaceted campaign. Gilmore has also avoided single issue politics, but he comes across sometimes as a passionless candidate. Passionless, solid, trustworthy conservatism is not reeling in the voters en masse at the moment.
Who won the debate? Mike Huckabee continued to impress me; the guy is charismatic, funny, compassionate, and extremely sharp. Bill Clinton had an uncanny ability to seem both intelligent and caring at the same time -- logos and pathos were in perfect harmony. Huckabee has the same ability, but comes across as more genuine than Bill often did. He's a great debater. John McCain continues to uncompromisingly express his plans for Iraq and immigration, and I thought he did rather well in this debate. His defense of immigration was prettier than a rose: I'm sure even Tancredo must have muttered to himself, "My God, how could I set him up like that?" as McCain ascended to the heavens. However I think most people agree on what McCain's Iraq plan will mean in the short run: more deaths. With more troops on the ground, maybe Iraq can be reined in and become less chaotic. Maybe the flow of ammunition and weaponry can be disrupted. But the end of chaos will be accompanied with the end of lives -- we'll see an acceleration of the war before its end. I'm not sure America really wants victory at any cost in Iraq...I know I don't. People who are willing to look past the surge of deaths in the short run though might just see a rosier future for both Iraq and the United States under McCain. McCain still stands for campaign reform and legislative action as well. I think the "no-death" campaign was also victorious simply because Ron Paul does what he has chosen to do extremely well. Paul keeps hitting the other candidates hard on the Iraq issue; at the end of the day, he's the only one seeking the Republican nomination who will bring the troops home regardless of the consequences. If you have someone you love in Iraq right now, there have to be times when that person is all that matters, overshadowing terrorism and national honor and the good of the Iraqi people and every other reason why the war in Iraq continues. It's hard to say if that point of view is a special selfishness born out of longing and love or, ultimately, sensible self-interest which will, as Paul argues, lead America out of a war that was a mistake from the very beginning.
Evolution, Today's Burning Issue
Debate questions are not created equal. Some, such as "Do you believe in evolution?", are quite unlikely to lead to insightful answers from anyone. When this question popped up in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, Mike Huckabee answered it forcefully with a vigorous declaration of faith...Christian faith, that is. He's never sounded more like a preacher to me than he did at that moment. At the same time, he questioned whether a presidential candidate's opinion on evolution is really all that important. Keep in mind that it really was an opinion/belief question only; nothing was asked directly about the teaching of evolution and/or creationism in schools, which is the major policy debate concerning evolution. Are the personal beliefs of candidates what we should be judging them on?
The chief flaw with judging candidates based on their beliefs that I see is that people do not act consistently even when solid in their beliefs. Plenty of people reject evolution but don't really mind it being taught in schools, for instance, whereas others who reject evolution are deeply disturbed that it might undermine religious faith by being taught in schools. The electorate don't know how a candidate will behave simply based on a belief -- at best certain policy directions can be implied by a candidate's declaration of a belief, but I think I'd rather hear a candidate's take on policy directly. There's also always the danger that candidates will simply try to match their set of professed beliefs to the set of beliefs they expect their base of likely voters to hold which means that a candidate's beliefs cannot even be used to judge his or her character very effectively.
As someone studying science but not biology, I've long been bemused by the attention accorded evolution. I realize that aspects of the theory seem to conflict with creationist beliefs, but no other theory in science is treated so universally as an issue of faith. I doubt very much that many of the candidates for president have studied up deeply on modern evolutionary theory -- this is as true for the Democratic candidates as it is for the Republicans. That means that when the candidates are answering the question if they believe in evolution they are not entirely sure what evolution is; they aren't approaching the issue from deep knowledge. Sometimes it seems like people want to debate evolution as it was presented in the 19th century, as if Darwin is the beginning and the end of evolutionary theory...and they often want to do this without reading "The Origin of Species"! Even though many people still see evolution in a 19th century context, evolution advocates nonetheless seem to want people to "believe" in evolution based on limited exposure to the theory. Personally, I don't really "believe" in theories -- they are models for thinking and frameworks upon which to build research. If an established theory is replaced by something new which suits the real world better, it's no big deal to me (especially if it's not MY theory!). I certainly cannot imagine getting upset because a theory I think is brilliant does not impress someone else.
That said, the "issue" of evolution is used as a litmus test on both sides. For creationists, denying evolution is a declaration of faith -- if eloquence and apparent sincerity mean anything to strong creationists, then surely Mike Huckabee picked up some votes on Tuesday. For the pro-evolution crowd, accepting evolution means accepting science. The issue isn't as straightforward as this, though. I don't think a creationist candidate is necessarily going to try to cut funding for science as an elected official. Sam Brownback has big dreams of ending cancer -- nothing about what he said in the debate suggested he wants to do this any other way than through science. Likewise, accepting evolution as a reasonable theory doesn't make someone necessarily opposed to religion or even to creationist ideas. While there is a legitimate battle going on over the evolution curriculum in schools, I think evolution as a political issue has limited traction and shouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone in choosing a candidate to support.
The chief flaw with judging candidates based on their beliefs that I see is that people do not act consistently even when solid in their beliefs. Plenty of people reject evolution but don't really mind it being taught in schools, for instance, whereas others who reject evolution are deeply disturbed that it might undermine religious faith by being taught in schools. The electorate don't know how a candidate will behave simply based on a belief -- at best certain policy directions can be implied by a candidate's declaration of a belief, but I think I'd rather hear a candidate's take on policy directly. There's also always the danger that candidates will simply try to match their set of professed beliefs to the set of beliefs they expect their base of likely voters to hold which means that a candidate's beliefs cannot even be used to judge his or her character very effectively.
As someone studying science but not biology, I've long been bemused by the attention accorded evolution. I realize that aspects of the theory seem to conflict with creationist beliefs, but no other theory in science is treated so universally as an issue of faith. I doubt very much that many of the candidates for president have studied up deeply on modern evolutionary theory -- this is as true for the Democratic candidates as it is for the Republicans. That means that when the candidates are answering the question if they believe in evolution they are not entirely sure what evolution is; they aren't approaching the issue from deep knowledge. Sometimes it seems like people want to debate evolution as it was presented in the 19th century, as if Darwin is the beginning and the end of evolutionary theory...and they often want to do this without reading "The Origin of Species"! Even though many people still see evolution in a 19th century context, evolution advocates nonetheless seem to want people to "believe" in evolution based on limited exposure to the theory. Personally, I don't really "believe" in theories -- they are models for thinking and frameworks upon which to build research. If an established theory is replaced by something new which suits the real world better, it's no big deal to me (especially if it's not MY theory!). I certainly cannot imagine getting upset because a theory I think is brilliant does not impress someone else.
That said, the "issue" of evolution is used as a litmus test on both sides. For creationists, denying evolution is a declaration of faith -- if eloquence and apparent sincerity mean anything to strong creationists, then surely Mike Huckabee picked up some votes on Tuesday. For the pro-evolution crowd, accepting evolution means accepting science. The issue isn't as straightforward as this, though. I don't think a creationist candidate is necessarily going to try to cut funding for science as an elected official. Sam Brownback has big dreams of ending cancer -- nothing about what he said in the debate suggested he wants to do this any other way than through science. Likewise, accepting evolution as a reasonable theory doesn't make someone necessarily opposed to religion or even to creationist ideas. While there is a legitimate battle going on over the evolution curriculum in schools, I think evolution as a political issue has limited traction and shouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone in choosing a candidate to support.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Biden Plan for Iraq
One of the few things Americans by and large can agree on is that they are unhappy with the situation in Iraq. The plans differ, but the voices which once declared, "The situation is under control. Our mission is being achieved," are growing fainter and fainter. Everyone wants some kind of change; it's just that the desired changes vary wildly from person to person. Personally, I have four goals regarding Iraq: (1) I want the deaths of American troops there to stop, (2) I don't want there to be a civil war that will establish the governance of Iraq by violence, (3) I don't want Iraq to turn into a happy training ground for terrorists, and (4) I don't want any part of Iraq to be taken over by Iran. In general, most plans I've heard about skimp on one or more of these goals in order to focus on achieving the other goals; to me, it seems absolutely necessary that all goals be achieved.
The Biden-Gelb plan has sparked my interest. It at least addresses all of my concerns and it is essentially a moderate rather than radical solution to the issue so I think it ought to be able to get widespread approval. That said, it is a moral compromise that won't make anyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, but that may be the best that can be done at the moment. At the core of the Biden-Gelb plan is giving Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites control over largely autonomous regions (a federal government would still exist to take care of nationwide concerns), thus ensuring that each major Iraqi group has a piece of the country. Oil revenues will be shared based on population to give each region a source of wealth. A base American force will be maintained to help out, but the numbers of American troops will be sharply reduced. This plan is appealing to me because it manages to reduce the troops on the ground (which will surely reduce deaths as well) and at the same time it attempts to appease Iraq's warring factions. The Biden-Gelb plan emphasizes the carrot over the stick insofar as Iraq's own population is concerned; I think this is wise even if it will likely not lead to an ideal political situation. If violence can be reduced, then it becomes more probable that a more ideal political situation can be achieved, but America and Iraq must deal with the reality that exists in the here and now. The most serious flaw that I see in the plan is that the Sunnis will be subsidized for behaving, essentially: the plan is saying, "Hey, you get a piece of the oil revenues just for staying over in your area!" In my opinion, oil revenues shouldn't be the only thing shared; an attempt (which will be perilous) to build up industry in the Sunni region is needed and perhaps this will be a way the Sunni region can give back to the rest of Iraq. There also needs to be a serious attempt to improve the quality of life in Iraq for all -- obviously this is very difficult to do in a war zone, but if a life of peace does not seem more appealing than a life of war fighting for change then surely people will continue to fight for change. Life in the here and now needs to be better for people en masse to embrace the present. There is also a question as to whether a much-reduced American force will be enough to dissuade hungry neighbors and opportunistic terrorists from grabbing their own pieces of Iraq.
So, I am leaning towards supporting the Biden-Gelb plan, yet I'm still not happy with it all. This plan is practical. It is anything but idealistic, however, and I cannot help but wonder about the future of Iraq if this plan goes through. Imagine if someone came up with a bright idea to divide the USA into regions based on demographics...there could be a black, white, and Asian regions or perhaps Evangelical, Catholic, and atheistic regions. Nothing about that situation suggests a unified country of equal citizens to me. In Iraq, the establishment of the regions might reduce the violence, but if its ultimate effect is the creation of three nations within a nation then America's influence can only be said to have driven the Iraqi people apart. Indeed, it seems common to hear Iraqis talk or write about how everyone in Iraq used to get along. It's not that America created divisions in the country so much as it is that America's entry into Iraq and the ensuing chaos enabled hidden tensions to rise up violently and overtly. Now that these tensions are out in the open how can they possibly be stashed away? Tension won't be the only legacy America leaves Iraq, either; the whole idea of the mandatory sharing of oil revenues is a form of wealth redistribution and an example of a grabbing government in action, isn't it? My plan for even more sharing of revenues could give Iraqis a ravenous, money-eating monster in place of a government that will represent their interests. (Hey, give me a break -- I'm trying to LEARN here. I'm not ready to be setting policy in reality yet!)
Despite my reservations, I do rather think the Biden-Gelb plan is the best plan I've heard to this point. It may or may not work, but in theory it does what I want an Iraq plan to do, and, if nothing else, it will get most American troops out of the country. Hopefully, the Biden-Gelb Iraq will be a temporary Iraq; with the United States out of the way, perhaps the country will be able to move back towards the direction of peaceful unity over time.
The Biden-Gelb plan has sparked my interest. It at least addresses all of my concerns and it is essentially a moderate rather than radical solution to the issue so I think it ought to be able to get widespread approval. That said, it is a moral compromise that won't make anyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, but that may be the best that can be done at the moment. At the core of the Biden-Gelb plan is giving Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites control over largely autonomous regions (a federal government would still exist to take care of nationwide concerns), thus ensuring that each major Iraqi group has a piece of the country. Oil revenues will be shared based on population to give each region a source of wealth. A base American force will be maintained to help out, but the numbers of American troops will be sharply reduced. This plan is appealing to me because it manages to reduce the troops on the ground (which will surely reduce deaths as well) and at the same time it attempts to appease Iraq's warring factions. The Biden-Gelb plan emphasizes the carrot over the stick insofar as Iraq's own population is concerned; I think this is wise even if it will likely not lead to an ideal political situation. If violence can be reduced, then it becomes more probable that a more ideal political situation can be achieved, but America and Iraq must deal with the reality that exists in the here and now. The most serious flaw that I see in the plan is that the Sunnis will be subsidized for behaving, essentially: the plan is saying, "Hey, you get a piece of the oil revenues just for staying over in your area!" In my opinion, oil revenues shouldn't be the only thing shared; an attempt (which will be perilous) to build up industry in the Sunni region is needed and perhaps this will be a way the Sunni region can give back to the rest of Iraq. There also needs to be a serious attempt to improve the quality of life in Iraq for all -- obviously this is very difficult to do in a war zone, but if a life of peace does not seem more appealing than a life of war fighting for change then surely people will continue to fight for change. Life in the here and now needs to be better for people en masse to embrace the present. There is also a question as to whether a much-reduced American force will be enough to dissuade hungry neighbors and opportunistic terrorists from grabbing their own pieces of Iraq.
So, I am leaning towards supporting the Biden-Gelb plan, yet I'm still not happy with it all. This plan is practical. It is anything but idealistic, however, and I cannot help but wonder about the future of Iraq if this plan goes through. Imagine if someone came up with a bright idea to divide the USA into regions based on demographics...there could be a black, white, and Asian regions or perhaps Evangelical, Catholic, and atheistic regions. Nothing about that situation suggests a unified country of equal citizens to me. In Iraq, the establishment of the regions might reduce the violence, but if its ultimate effect is the creation of three nations within a nation then America's influence can only be said to have driven the Iraqi people apart. Indeed, it seems common to hear Iraqis talk or write about how everyone in Iraq used to get along. It's not that America created divisions in the country so much as it is that America's entry into Iraq and the ensuing chaos enabled hidden tensions to rise up violently and overtly. Now that these tensions are out in the open how can they possibly be stashed away? Tension won't be the only legacy America leaves Iraq, either; the whole idea of the mandatory sharing of oil revenues is a form of wealth redistribution and an example of a grabbing government in action, isn't it? My plan for even more sharing of revenues could give Iraqis a ravenous, money-eating monster in place of a government that will represent their interests. (Hey, give me a break -- I'm trying to LEARN here. I'm not ready to be setting policy in reality yet!)
Despite my reservations, I do rather think the Biden-Gelb plan is the best plan I've heard to this point. It may or may not work, but in theory it does what I want an Iraq plan to do, and, if nothing else, it will get most American troops out of the country. Hopefully, the Biden-Gelb Iraq will be a temporary Iraq; with the United States out of the way, perhaps the country will be able to move back towards the direction of peaceful unity over time.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The Quest for an Electable, True Conservative
With some regularity I'm hearing voices in the media declare, "There is no true conservative running for president yet...we need Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson to enter the race!" My first reaction to this is incredulity -- there are tons of candidates in the race already, so how could none of them be "true conservatives" when the conservative voting bloc is so significant? Is this base of American voters really being ignored and neglected? The truth is, I expect, that there are a number of candidates who are basically conservative but yet also have something wrong about them, a fatal flaw, and the candidates who are closest to being "true conservatives" face an uphill battle to win votes simply because they are not big names.
The big name issue is an interesting one. The most famous candidates are among the most popular at the moment: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the only top candidates that have really emerged out of relative obscurity, although I was aware of Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention even though I was not following politics closely at the time. Anyway, Gingrich and Fred Thompson are names -- bigger names for sure than Mitt Romney and most of the other Republican candidates. Gingrich was Speaker of the House! Thompson is an actor! Their politics almost seem to be a secondary thing relative to their names for those that really want them in the race. However, the Gingrich and Thompson backers have a point: people won't vote for a candidate they've never heard of before. Gingrich and Thompson would enter the race with name recognition already -- a big advantage compared to those who must struggle to build that name recognition from the ground up.
That said, I can understand why some conservatives are uncomfortable with the present list of candidates. It's hard to be perfect at anything, including conservatism. Giuliani is not the candidate for those who want to see abortion outlawed as soon as possible -- as I mentioned in a previous post, Giuliani is really more of a mix of liberal and conservative than one or the other. McCain doesn't want the Constitution amended to ban gay marriage. Romney changed his mind about abortion (and became more conservative), perhaps for political convenience. What surprises me, though, is that even candidates I once considered to be absolute conservatives also have chinks in their armor. Jim Gilmore is awful close to being a "true conservative," but he thinks women should have the right to an abortion in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, a deal-breaker for some conservative voters. Mike Huckabee gets my vote as the most likable "true conservative" in the race, but there's already an anti-Huckabee site that criticizes the man for having "a history of poor judgment and unethical behavior" although its arguments aren't particularly convincing. There probably won't be a perfect "true conservative" in the race even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich officially announce their candidacies, but perhaps all that is really wanted by conservatives is a candidate who can beat Giuliani both ideologically and politically.
The big name issue is an interesting one. The most famous candidates are among the most popular at the moment: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the only top candidates that have really emerged out of relative obscurity, although I was aware of Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention even though I was not following politics closely at the time. Anyway, Gingrich and Fred Thompson are names -- bigger names for sure than Mitt Romney and most of the other Republican candidates. Gingrich was Speaker of the House! Thompson is an actor! Their politics almost seem to be a secondary thing relative to their names for those that really want them in the race. However, the Gingrich and Thompson backers have a point: people won't vote for a candidate they've never heard of before. Gingrich and Thompson would enter the race with name recognition already -- a big advantage compared to those who must struggle to build that name recognition from the ground up.
That said, I can understand why some conservatives are uncomfortable with the present list of candidates. It's hard to be perfect at anything, including conservatism. Giuliani is not the candidate for those who want to see abortion outlawed as soon as possible -- as I mentioned in a previous post, Giuliani is really more of a mix of liberal and conservative than one or the other. McCain doesn't want the Constitution amended to ban gay marriage. Romney changed his mind about abortion (and became more conservative), perhaps for political convenience. What surprises me, though, is that even candidates I once considered to be absolute conservatives also have chinks in their armor. Jim Gilmore is awful close to being a "true conservative," but he thinks women should have the right to an abortion in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, a deal-breaker for some conservative voters. Mike Huckabee gets my vote as the most likable "true conservative" in the race, but there's already an anti-Huckabee site that criticizes the man for having "a history of poor judgment and unethical behavior" although its arguments aren't particularly convincing. There probably won't be a perfect "true conservative" in the race even if Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich officially announce their candidacies, but perhaps all that is really wanted by conservatives is a candidate who can beat Giuliani both ideologically and politically.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Aristotle's Democracy and the Welfare State
When Aristotle discusses various forms of government in Book III of "Politics", he reserves some of his least charitable comments for democracy, which he calls a perversion rather than a true form of government. Aristotle thinks that the masses of a state, being usually poor, will, if they have control over the state, use their power to seize the wealth of the rich. Thus, the masses will only act in their own interests and think nothing of the rights of their fellow citizens. To be fair, Aristotle does acknowledge that the elite also will sometimes steal from the poor, but it seems like Aristotle fears the rule of the masses more than he fears the rule of the elite, though he criticizes both...Aristotle criticizes EVERYTHING! That's what I love about the man, even though we rarely see eye-to-eye when it comes to politics.
Anyway, I was trying to imagine what Aristotle would think of the American political system in its present form. I imagined he would be horrified by the rule of the masses permitted by this representative democracy. He, so fond of categorizing, would surely not lump the American system with the democracies, aristocracies, and monarchies he wrote about; it would be a new breed of government to him. However, I don't think he would be surprised that wealth is regularly redistributed by the American system of taxation -- this is exactly what he'd expect to result from the rule of the masses. Unlike Aristotle, I find it hard to see the rich as victims. Nonetheless, it is true that having wealth does put one in the cross-hairs of many who are hungry, including the federal government, and one doesn't need to be particularly rich to feel the sting of wealth redistribution or, for that matter, to benefit from its effects. Is this system institutionalized thievery or an example of government intervention for the common good?
One delightful aspect of the 2008 presidential race is that two candidates with radically different ideas concerning the role of government and by association government's role to redistribute wealth are each seeking their respective party's nomination. The two candidates I speak of are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul wants to strip government to its bare minimum; he doesn't like government interference in citizens' lives, even if that interference would be positive for some. Kucinich, on the other hand, is a big believer in government's ability to help citizens. Ron Paul's government won't need much money to operate because it won't be much of a provider of services. Kucinich's government will need more money because it will provide more services. These two guys are on total opposite sides of the spectrum, but I find it impossible to say which one is more right or more wrong right now.
Honestly, this redistribution of wealth thing is an issue I really struggle with even though it's about as important and relevant as an issue can be to me. Something in me says that some things are too important to be simply bought and sold on the open market. I hate that surgery or prolonged hospital stays can wreck people's finances, for instance. However, there is a price to be paid for having government-funded health care, and I don't like taxes either. What is better in the long run -- to be protected and nurtured by Kucinich's motherly government or to be allowed to live freely and privately by Paul's unobtrusive government? Both are appealing and repulsive at the same time! I don't know what to do other than to listen closely to what both Paul and Kucinich have to say. I suppose I can also find comfort in the fact that all the other major candidates are more moderate on this issue than those two, so I'm clearly not the only one who can't make up my mind.
Book link: Aristotle's Politics
Anyway, I was trying to imagine what Aristotle would think of the American political system in its present form. I imagined he would be horrified by the rule of the masses permitted by this representative democracy. He, so fond of categorizing, would surely not lump the American system with the democracies, aristocracies, and monarchies he wrote about; it would be a new breed of government to him. However, I don't think he would be surprised that wealth is regularly redistributed by the American system of taxation -- this is exactly what he'd expect to result from the rule of the masses. Unlike Aristotle, I find it hard to see the rich as victims. Nonetheless, it is true that having wealth does put one in the cross-hairs of many who are hungry, including the federal government, and one doesn't need to be particularly rich to feel the sting of wealth redistribution or, for that matter, to benefit from its effects. Is this system institutionalized thievery or an example of government intervention for the common good?
One delightful aspect of the 2008 presidential race is that two candidates with radically different ideas concerning the role of government and by association government's role to redistribute wealth are each seeking their respective party's nomination. The two candidates I speak of are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul wants to strip government to its bare minimum; he doesn't like government interference in citizens' lives, even if that interference would be positive for some. Kucinich, on the other hand, is a big believer in government's ability to help citizens. Ron Paul's government won't need much money to operate because it won't be much of a provider of services. Kucinich's government will need more money because it will provide more services. These two guys are on total opposite sides of the spectrum, but I find it impossible to say which one is more right or more wrong right now.
Honestly, this redistribution of wealth thing is an issue I really struggle with even though it's about as important and relevant as an issue can be to me. Something in me says that some things are too important to be simply bought and sold on the open market. I hate that surgery or prolonged hospital stays can wreck people's finances, for instance. However, there is a price to be paid for having government-funded health care, and I don't like taxes either. What is better in the long run -- to be protected and nurtured by Kucinich's motherly government or to be allowed to live freely and privately by Paul's unobtrusive government? Both are appealing and repulsive at the same time! I don't know what to do other than to listen closely to what both Paul and Kucinich have to say. I suppose I can also find comfort in the fact that all the other major candidates are more moderate on this issue than those two, so I'm clearly not the only one who can't make up my mind.
Book link: Aristotle's Politics
O'Reilly's "white, Christian, male power structure"
FOX News pundit Bill O'Reilly has mentioned something called the "white, Christian, male power structure" in relation to immigration several times this week on his television program, "The O'Reilly Factor." In particular, he has presented illegal immigration amnesty as being a threat to this structure. O'Reilly has raised more questions than he has answered, it seems. Just what is this mysterious "white, Christian, male power structure" and why is it so necessary to save it and why are some people so devoted to wanting to end it?
This all probably has something to do with the Founding Fathers and their legacy. They, like so many other great Americans, were white and male. Many of the leaders in finance and politics in America today remain white and male. The "Christian" part is definitely the hardest to accept; most political liars and financial cheats I've read about don't seem to have any particular deeply-felt religious beliefs at all despite them definitely being highly influential for a time. Similarly, the Deism followed by some of the Founding Fathers is not really Christianity as I understand it. Still, I can accept that some of the greatest, most influential Americans have been and continue to be white, male, and Christian...however, I don't think their greatness was necessarily due to their demographic, and I don't think America's continued success is necessarily dependent on it being ruled by white, male Christians. At the same time, I wouldn't want to see white, male Christians denied their right to influence their nation -- indeed, I'd expect to see this "class" continue to be very powerful for the foreseeable future.
The term "power structure" to me brings to mind what Aristotle wrote about those "born to serve" and those "born to rule." Seemingly, O'Reilly is saying that white, male, Christians are the ones born to rule in America. Where do people like Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice fit into this structure? They seem to wield great power at the present time, but don't belong to the class "born to rule." It seems like the very concept of a "white, Christian, male power structure" essentially marginalizes a sizable group of people who nominally at least wield a great deal of power: for instance, female business owners, black Congressmen, and several presidential candidates are all outside this structure. I have utterly no idea how O'Reilly classifies Jews and Mormons, but I would think they'd be outside O's "power structure" too. Surely a better debate could be sparked simply by O'Reilly saying, "This new wave of immigration threatens to change America, and I'm deeply disturbed by the nature of that change." The "white, male, Christian power structure" is a nebulous term that fails to reflect the distribution of power that currently exists in the United States.
This all probably has something to do with the Founding Fathers and their legacy. They, like so many other great Americans, were white and male. Many of the leaders in finance and politics in America today remain white and male. The "Christian" part is definitely the hardest to accept; most political liars and financial cheats I've read about don't seem to have any particular deeply-felt religious beliefs at all despite them definitely being highly influential for a time. Similarly, the Deism followed by some of the Founding Fathers is not really Christianity as I understand it. Still, I can accept that some of the greatest, most influential Americans have been and continue to be white, male, and Christian...however, I don't think their greatness was necessarily due to their demographic, and I don't think America's continued success is necessarily dependent on it being ruled by white, male Christians. At the same time, I wouldn't want to see white, male Christians denied their right to influence their nation -- indeed, I'd expect to see this "class" continue to be very powerful for the foreseeable future.
The term "power structure" to me brings to mind what Aristotle wrote about those "born to serve" and those "born to rule." Seemingly, O'Reilly is saying that white, male, Christians are the ones born to rule in America. Where do people like Nancy Pelosi and Condoleezza Rice fit into this structure? They seem to wield great power at the present time, but don't belong to the class "born to rule." It seems like the very concept of a "white, Christian, male power structure" essentially marginalizes a sizable group of people who nominally at least wield a great deal of power: for instance, female business owners, black Congressmen, and several presidential candidates are all outside this structure. I have utterly no idea how O'Reilly classifies Jews and Mormons, but I would think they'd be outside O's "power structure" too. Surely a better debate could be sparked simply by O'Reilly saying, "This new wave of immigration threatens to change America, and I'm deeply disturbed by the nature of that change." The "white, male, Christian power structure" is a nebulous term that fails to reflect the distribution of power that currently exists in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)