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.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Secession's Bad Name
Sometimes the success (or lack thereof) of an idea has less to do with the merits of an idea and more to do with the people who espouse it. We might reason that "better" ideas are embraced by "better" people, but that's only true to a degree. There's little reason to trust a doctor or a scientist's point of view on politics implicitly, for instance, though they might be brilliant in their specific niches. Perhaps the most dangerous thing for an idea is for it to become associated with disreputable people or organizations. Undoubtedly communism has gone out of vogue less because of anything that Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels actually wrote and more because what dictators like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong actually did while in power. You can certainly be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and not believe in mass murder, but it's difficult for any movement to survive being taken over by evil on such a scale.
In the United States, secessionism is also a severely tainted political ideology. I think it's fair to say that Americans are opposed to secession by default largely because they are opposed to the practice of slavery. Secession is still viewed through the lens of the Civil War; secessionism as an idea still stinks of the Confederacy. On the other hand, many Americans who are opposed to secession by default quite avidly support the idea of a Palestinian state or of a Free Tibet which are essentially secessionist movements; neither is it unusual for an American to believe the American colonists were justified in breaking away from Britain while at the same time refusing to seriously consider the prospect of a state legally breaking free of the United States.
As a general rule, I think people should have the right of self-determination. So, I tend to be "pro-secession" to the extent that I think there ought to be political mechanisms in place to allow people to break away from the state if there is a widespread desire to do so. It shouldn't be easy to secede, but it also shouldn't be impossible. I think it's healthy when Quebecois are allowed to vote to decide if they want to stay a part of Canada or forge ahead on their own -- they should have the right to make that decision. If the Catalonians, Scots, Tibetans, or Uighurs want to have their own nations, I also see no reason why they shouldn't. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that sometimes people will seek secession for less than noble reasons. For the most part, today's secession movements around the world seem to be tied to preserving a culture, language, or religion -- they are motivated by the desire to protect some of the most basic human rights. If we accept that all people have the right to self-determination, though, we have to accept that secession will sometimes lead to bad consequences. I would never claim that the Civil War was entirely motivated by slavery, but undoubtedly one of the consequences of secession would have been a continuation of the practice of legal slavery in the southern states, at least for a time. It's hardly surprising that China attempts to brush aside calls for Tibetan independence by villifying the feudalism of old Tibet -- the state is trying to argue that Tibetans shouldn't have the right to self-determination because they don't know what's good for them and want to go backwards. If you truly believe in self-determination as a concept, however, you also believe that people should have the freedom to make mistakes.
Many also oppose secessionism for purely practical reasons. Without a doubt, smaller nations tend to be more vulnerable to invasion. While individual areas like Venice and Genoa and Bavaria lost tremendous influence by the unification of Italy and Germany, these massive states became military powers in their own right, much more able to defend themselves against attack as well as perpetrate attacks on other nations. If every city in the world suddenly became free tomorrow, there might well be a flowering of culture and commerce as each city developed internally, but as soon as two cities formed a confederation the trend towards incorporation by force or coercion would likely begin anew. Additionally, secessionists, often motivated by pure emotion, don't always consider political matters like access to sea ports or land barriers that will surely help determine the future success of the nation they are trying to form when they are in the process of fighting for freedom. As I see it, these practical concerns will come to the fore if secessionism is treated less like a criminal act and more of a political issue to be debated. Although the independence-favoring Scottish National Power is narrowly in control of Scotland, Scottish secessionists face an uphill battle in even getting a vote on independence largely because of the reluctance of Scottish voters to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom and no longer be a part of a world power. If even the Scots aren't sure they want to break their union with their historical enemy England of all nations, then I think we can rest assured that legal secessionism is unlikely to create millions of microstates any time soon. At least the Scots can choose their own destiny (or at least influence the process), though, unlike the Uighurs and Tibetans. Amending the constitutions of the world to provide a clear legal path to secession, with definite (difficult but achievable) requirements set in place, would be a positive development in my view. In the United States, the law is already biased against secession, but I sincerely hope that Americans wouldn't treat a modern Texas independence movement (just to give a wild example...) as China treats the Tibetans.
In the United States, secessionism is also a severely tainted political ideology. I think it's fair to say that Americans are opposed to secession by default largely because they are opposed to the practice of slavery. Secession is still viewed through the lens of the Civil War; secessionism as an idea still stinks of the Confederacy. On the other hand, many Americans who are opposed to secession by default quite avidly support the idea of a Palestinian state or of a Free Tibet which are essentially secessionist movements; neither is it unusual for an American to believe the American colonists were justified in breaking away from Britain while at the same time refusing to seriously consider the prospect of a state legally breaking free of the United States.
As a general rule, I think people should have the right of self-determination. So, I tend to be "pro-secession" to the extent that I think there ought to be political mechanisms in place to allow people to break away from the state if there is a widespread desire to do so. It shouldn't be easy to secede, but it also shouldn't be impossible. I think it's healthy when Quebecois are allowed to vote to decide if they want to stay a part of Canada or forge ahead on their own -- they should have the right to make that decision. If the Catalonians, Scots, Tibetans, or Uighurs want to have their own nations, I also see no reason why they shouldn't. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that sometimes people will seek secession for less than noble reasons. For the most part, today's secession movements around the world seem to be tied to preserving a culture, language, or religion -- they are motivated by the desire to protect some of the most basic human rights. If we accept that all people have the right to self-determination, though, we have to accept that secession will sometimes lead to bad consequences. I would never claim that the Civil War was entirely motivated by slavery, but undoubtedly one of the consequences of secession would have been a continuation of the practice of legal slavery in the southern states, at least for a time. It's hardly surprising that China attempts to brush aside calls for Tibetan independence by villifying the feudalism of old Tibet -- the state is trying to argue that Tibetans shouldn't have the right to self-determination because they don't know what's good for them and want to go backwards. If you truly believe in self-determination as a concept, however, you also believe that people should have the freedom to make mistakes.
Many also oppose secessionism for purely practical reasons. Without a doubt, smaller nations tend to be more vulnerable to invasion. While individual areas like Venice and Genoa and Bavaria lost tremendous influence by the unification of Italy and Germany, these massive states became military powers in their own right, much more able to defend themselves against attack as well as perpetrate attacks on other nations. If every city in the world suddenly became free tomorrow, there might well be a flowering of culture and commerce as each city developed internally, but as soon as two cities formed a confederation the trend towards incorporation by force or coercion would likely begin anew. Additionally, secessionists, often motivated by pure emotion, don't always consider political matters like access to sea ports or land barriers that will surely help determine the future success of the nation they are trying to form when they are in the process of fighting for freedom. As I see it, these practical concerns will come to the fore if secessionism is treated less like a criminal act and more of a political issue to be debated. Although the independence-favoring Scottish National Power is narrowly in control of Scotland, Scottish secessionists face an uphill battle in even getting a vote on independence largely because of the reluctance of Scottish voters to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom and no longer be a part of a world power. If even the Scots aren't sure they want to break their union with their historical enemy England of all nations, then I think we can rest assured that legal secessionism is unlikely to create millions of microstates any time soon. At least the Scots can choose their own destiny (or at least influence the process), though, unlike the Uighurs and Tibetans. Amending the constitutions of the world to provide a clear legal path to secession, with definite (difficult but achievable) requirements set in place, would be a positive development in my view. In the United States, the law is already biased against secession, but I sincerely hope that Americans wouldn't treat a modern Texas independence movement (just to give a wild example...) as China treats the Tibetans.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Gauging the Success of the Stimulus
I have a different take on stimulus spending than many. I don't really think it does all that much good to the economy in and of itself -- I think instead that its primary benefit is psychological. Remember, stimulus spending is typically a one shot deal...it is by its very nature not sustainable and even the largest of stimulus packages is going to be small compared to the size of the overall economy. Thus, I think the best stimulus package is the one that is as small as possible yet is still capable of instilling new confidence in the nation's entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers. From this perspective, I felt uneasy about the stimulus package that Congress actually passed and President Obama signed in 2009. I thought it was simply too big and another nail in the coffin for America's finances. After reading the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for myself, my concerns multiplied as much of the spending seemed geared not towards short-term economic growth but rather damage control for public institutions to help them survive the downturn.
As 2010 begins, I think we can see the stimulus bill was rather a mixed bag. It worked fantastically in terms of calming the jitters of investors. The stock market had a fine 2009 and recouped much of its losses suffered during the previous year. That in turn means that publicly listed companies have renewed access to the money raising engine that is the stock market, that large and small stock investors alike are making money, and that retirement accounts are looking much healthier . On the other hand, unemployment remains very high. The country returned to economic growth in the last quarter, but it's rather anemic growth and nothing to get too excited about. Undoubtedly, the ARRA did save many public jobs as state and local governments struggled with budget shortfalls, but the Boston Globe did some fantastic research to expose how flawed some of the jobs numbers reported really were. In many cases, jobs seem not to have really been created but rather retained instead -- in some cases, the money seems to have been downright misused, having been used to give raises to existing employees which hardly seems necessary in this economic climate. The infrastructure spending component of the stimulus has been a downright disappointment; the slow speed in getting these projects off the ground has really limited the effect it has had on unemployment. In fact, that slowness has made me question the value of infrastructure spending as stimulus at all...I'm as big a fan of good roads and strong bridges as anyone, but stimulus spending is supposed to have a speedy impact on the economy.
The fundamental problem with stimulus spending as damage control may be really exposed this year. It's quite possible that state and local governments, still facing revenue shortfalls, will be forced to cut even more jobs after they go through stimulus funds. It would've been far better to have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment at this point even at the expense of many public jobs as governments could easily start hiring again once tax revenues recovered. Instead, it looks like the stimulus may have little lingering effect on the economy and calls for a second stimulus will surely continue to be heard. (I expect any "jobs bill" that gets passed will in effect be a second stimulus even if it isn't called that.)
Ultimately, I feel that the biggest failure of the stimulus is that it didn't quite improve confidence enough. It worked for the stock market, but it didn't encourage people to start businesses or start hiring more workers. Did it need to do more to specifically encourage entrepreneurship or hiring? Maybe...that couldn't have hurt. However, I also think the stimulus package became something of a victim of President Obama's ambitious overall agenda. The debate over health care reform in particular has created a lot of uncertainty; arguably, the specter of cap and trade has created just as much uneasiness in the business community. In a way, it's not even so much the particulars of the proposed legislation that has the chilling effect on the economy -- it's the uncertainty and the fear of what MIGHT be enacted and the tax increases that MIGHT be coming. Had some form of health care and climate change legislation been passed quickly (which I doubt would have been even possible given the fractious political environment), I think the economy might have improved quicker. Instead, we've had lingering, paralyzing uncertainty. Ultimately, I suspect the economy would have fared better had the government focused on it ahead of all other priorities, but Obama and the Democrats didn't want to lose the opportunity to pass what they viewed as very important legislation. What they do in 2010 is going to be interesting to see. It's an election year -- do they dare tackle immigration reform as has been whispered or is this the time to focus squarely on the economy? First, however, they STILL have to finish with health care and cap and trade, though.
As 2010 begins, I think we can see the stimulus bill was rather a mixed bag. It worked fantastically in terms of calming the jitters of investors. The stock market had a fine 2009 and recouped much of its losses suffered during the previous year. That in turn means that publicly listed companies have renewed access to the money raising engine that is the stock market, that large and small stock investors alike are making money, and that retirement accounts are looking much healthier . On the other hand, unemployment remains very high. The country returned to economic growth in the last quarter, but it's rather anemic growth and nothing to get too excited about. Undoubtedly, the ARRA did save many public jobs as state and local governments struggled with budget shortfalls, but the Boston Globe did some fantastic research to expose how flawed some of the jobs numbers reported really were. In many cases, jobs seem not to have really been created but rather retained instead -- in some cases, the money seems to have been downright misused, having been used to give raises to existing employees which hardly seems necessary in this economic climate. The infrastructure spending component of the stimulus has been a downright disappointment; the slow speed in getting these projects off the ground has really limited the effect it has had on unemployment. In fact, that slowness has made me question the value of infrastructure spending as stimulus at all...I'm as big a fan of good roads and strong bridges as anyone, but stimulus spending is supposed to have a speedy impact on the economy.
The fundamental problem with stimulus spending as damage control may be really exposed this year. It's quite possible that state and local governments, still facing revenue shortfalls, will be forced to cut even more jobs after they go through stimulus funds. It would've been far better to have stronger economic growth and lower unemployment at this point even at the expense of many public jobs as governments could easily start hiring again once tax revenues recovered. Instead, it looks like the stimulus may have little lingering effect on the economy and calls for a second stimulus will surely continue to be heard. (I expect any "jobs bill" that gets passed will in effect be a second stimulus even if it isn't called that.)
Ultimately, I feel that the biggest failure of the stimulus is that it didn't quite improve confidence enough. It worked for the stock market, but it didn't encourage people to start businesses or start hiring more workers. Did it need to do more to specifically encourage entrepreneurship or hiring? Maybe...that couldn't have hurt. However, I also think the stimulus package became something of a victim of President Obama's ambitious overall agenda. The debate over health care reform in particular has created a lot of uncertainty; arguably, the specter of cap and trade has created just as much uneasiness in the business community. In a way, it's not even so much the particulars of the proposed legislation that has the chilling effect on the economy -- it's the uncertainty and the fear of what MIGHT be enacted and the tax increases that MIGHT be coming. Had some form of health care and climate change legislation been passed quickly (which I doubt would have been even possible given the fractious political environment), I think the economy might have improved quicker. Instead, we've had lingering, paralyzing uncertainty. Ultimately, I suspect the economy would have fared better had the government focused on it ahead of all other priorities, but Obama and the Democrats didn't want to lose the opportunity to pass what they viewed as very important legislation. What they do in 2010 is going to be interesting to see. It's an election year -- do they dare tackle immigration reform as has been whispered or is this the time to focus squarely on the economy? First, however, they STILL have to finish with health care and cap and trade, though.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Islam in Europe, a Test of Religious Toleration
When I think of religious intolerance in the present day, the first countries that pop in my mind are authoritarian ones like China. While Europe's disdain for certain forms of Christianity spurred on many to seek new lives in the New World, that's now the distant past -- the wars for toleration have already been fought and won, the peace treaties signed with the blood of countless Protestants and Catholics. Nonetheless, Europe's hard-won tolerance is being sorely tested at the moment as largely secular and Christian Europeans struggle to coexist with increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants.
How big of a struggle this is was revealed in Switzerland recently where a referendum passed banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Bear in mind that the minaret is essentially an architectural feature common to mosques -- it is distinctive, but about as innocuous an aspect of Islam (if it should really even be called that...the column is not an expression of the worship of Zeus or Jupiter) as there can be. If minarets are ban-worthy, would the referendum have yielded different results if it were Islam itself being evaluated? Undoubtedly the result was influenced by low voter turnout -- the people most passionate about the minarets, which hardly even exist in Switzerland, were those most opposed to Islam. Yet this is not just a Swiss thing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly stated that the burka, an all-encompassing article of clothing commonly worn by Muslim women, is not welcome in France. Once again, read between the lines: is it the clothing itself that is unwelcome or is it the religion that inspires the wearing of the clothing that is under siege? Sarkozy's statement has no legal teeth at the moment, but the gauntlet has been dropped -- the extent to which Islam can be publicly practiced in France is likely up to politicians to decide.
Now, if you listen to what the supporters of the restriction of Islam say, they'll deny everything. "No, no, no, it really IS about the veils and the minarets. It's about culture and women's rights. Nothing to do with Islam, that great religion." However, if the version of Islam you follow does require the burka, any law against the burka effectively means you cannot practice your religion. I firmly believe it is not the state's responsibility to interpret religion -- for instance, the government of France cannot say what is or is not a part of Islam. To say the veil is not part of Islam is essentially to take a side in a long running religious argument over the extent to which the hadiths, or attributed sayings of Muhammad compiled by various chroniclers, should be regarded as religiously binding. Some Muslims think the hadiths are of dubious origin and the Q'uran alone is the Islamic scripture...most, however, embrace both together to some extent. If Islam is truly to be tolerated, then the state cannot tell each Muslim what to believe and how to practice his or her religion. The burka and minaret happen to have something else in common besides a connection to Islam: they are both very visible. To ban them is to wipe away the external trappings of Islam, to make it an invisible religion...it is little but a way for Europe to try to forget its large immigrant populations. The veil itself has little to do with women's rights -- many religions require some external sign of belief and in some Islamic sects men also wear veils. On the other hand, aspects of Islam which are effectively impossible to ban, like the belief that women should not be allowed to associate with unrelated men (sometimes even teachers, doctors, and police officers) and should not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim really do restrict the lives of women in ways I don't think are acceptable. My disagreements with Islam on women's rights and other issues are simply why I am not a Muslim, though -- I certainly don't think I or anyone else has the right to let such religious disagreements lead me to interfere with how other people live their lives. The state can and should protect women who face harassment or worse because they have abandoned Islam or otherwise violated the cultural norms of their community as it would protect any abused or threatened person; however, it cannot and should not prevent women from holding beliefs that may not be shared by the bulk of society. One irony of the European situation is that many Muslims in Europe have already voluntarily abandoned the aspects of Islam that are least compatible with western traditions. Even so, they are treated like second-class citizens!
What is so wrong about Switzerland's minaret ban and the rhetoric coming out of France is that there is nothing wrong with minarets or veils and no reason to consider banning them...the only reason the issue of banning has been raised is because minarets and veils are associated with Islam. If, for instance, there were something inherently troubling about minarets and veils then they could have been banned before the influx of Muslim immigrants even started so those immigrants would have known what to expect. Religious tolerance doesn't mean "anything goes" -- followers of Thuggee can't murder with impunity just because their faith tells them to do so. Banning harmless religious practices, though, is simply a way of banning a form of religion indirectly. Besides that, it even infringes on the rights of non-Muslims: what if you want to wear a burka or build a minaret just for the heck of it (or because you're making a movie set in an Islamic country)? Free countries shouldn't have irrational restrictions like that.
I think it is fair to say that Europeans aren't necessarily intolerant by nature. Hating something because you feel it has no right to exist is somewhat different from fearing something because you feel it threatens your right to exist. Many Europeans are concerned about maintaining their national and religious identities and view influxes of immigrants as a threat to that. I don't think that point of view should be condemned out of hand, though you can certainly argue that immigrants can become good, patriotic citizens and that no nation is "pure." The fundamental reason immigration is such a hot issue around the world, though, is that immigration policies typically have little to do with public sentiment. Governments by their nature always want larger populations. They struggle mightily to cut back on spending in response to declining populations and declining revenues. Immigration is a convenient way to keep populations growing and most countries are well aware of that...Japan is one of the few remaining industrialized countries to literally restrict immigration out of principle despite a declining population. Still, it would be far more moral to have restrictive immigration policies than to infringe on the religious rights of immigrants once they have arrived in and settled down in a new country. It simply isn't fair to open up the borders of your country, let people in from all over the world, and then say, "Relinquish your beliefs and identities and mold yourselves in our images!" The Swiss and the French should really be fighting for control of their countries' immigration policies, not attacking the freedoms of their fellow citizens.
Although the United States' Muslim population is relatively small, I expect immigration will continue to be a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic throughout my lifetime. The same issues Europeans often have with Muslims native-born Americans often have with Hispanic immigrants. You hear the same arguments about culture and ways of life and the threat unbridled immigration poses...but less about religion because most Hispanics are Catholic, just like many native citizens. As more Muslims do immigrate to the US, I expect the religious arguments will crop up increasingly as well, despite the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. Many in America also feel that they don't have control over their country's immigration policies -- you can argue to an extent that the USA is a special case as a "nation of immigrants" but there have always been restrictions on immigration here, some blatantly racist, and there have always been political forces opposed to immigration. Although I'm personally proud of the United States' past embrace of immigrants from all corners of the globe, I do wonder if at some point we won't decide that we pretty much have enough people here already. The prospect of more space and less competition for resources is inherently tempting, even though settling for that form of utopia means that the Nikola Teslas and Werner von Brauns of the future will no longer come to our shores. If we do go down that route, however, I hope we can do it without punishing the immigrants who are already here and without making a mockery of a constitution that protects the basic rights of all citizens. Europe's solution may well turn out to be our own...I hope it turns out to be a reasonable one.
How big of a struggle this is was revealed in Switzerland recently where a referendum passed banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Bear in mind that the minaret is essentially an architectural feature common to mosques -- it is distinctive, but about as innocuous an aspect of Islam (if it should really even be called that...the column is not an expression of the worship of Zeus or Jupiter) as there can be. If minarets are ban-worthy, would the referendum have yielded different results if it were Islam itself being evaluated? Undoubtedly the result was influenced by low voter turnout -- the people most passionate about the minarets, which hardly even exist in Switzerland, were those most opposed to Islam. Yet this is not just a Swiss thing. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly stated that the burka, an all-encompassing article of clothing commonly worn by Muslim women, is not welcome in France. Once again, read between the lines: is it the clothing itself that is unwelcome or is it the religion that inspires the wearing of the clothing that is under siege? Sarkozy's statement has no legal teeth at the moment, but the gauntlet has been dropped -- the extent to which Islam can be publicly practiced in France is likely up to politicians to decide.
Now, if you listen to what the supporters of the restriction of Islam say, they'll deny everything. "No, no, no, it really IS about the veils and the minarets. It's about culture and women's rights. Nothing to do with Islam, that great religion." However, if the version of Islam you follow does require the burka, any law against the burka effectively means you cannot practice your religion. I firmly believe it is not the state's responsibility to interpret religion -- for instance, the government of France cannot say what is or is not a part of Islam. To say the veil is not part of Islam is essentially to take a side in a long running religious argument over the extent to which the hadiths, or attributed sayings of Muhammad compiled by various chroniclers, should be regarded as religiously binding. Some Muslims think the hadiths are of dubious origin and the Q'uran alone is the Islamic scripture...most, however, embrace both together to some extent. If Islam is truly to be tolerated, then the state cannot tell each Muslim what to believe and how to practice his or her religion. The burka and minaret happen to have something else in common besides a connection to Islam: they are both very visible. To ban them is to wipe away the external trappings of Islam, to make it an invisible religion...it is little but a way for Europe to try to forget its large immigrant populations. The veil itself has little to do with women's rights -- many religions require some external sign of belief and in some Islamic sects men also wear veils. On the other hand, aspects of Islam which are effectively impossible to ban, like the belief that women should not be allowed to associate with unrelated men (sometimes even teachers, doctors, and police officers) and should not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim really do restrict the lives of women in ways I don't think are acceptable. My disagreements with Islam on women's rights and other issues are simply why I am not a Muslim, though -- I certainly don't think I or anyone else has the right to let such religious disagreements lead me to interfere with how other people live their lives. The state can and should protect women who face harassment or worse because they have abandoned Islam or otherwise violated the cultural norms of their community as it would protect any abused or threatened person; however, it cannot and should not prevent women from holding beliefs that may not be shared by the bulk of society. One irony of the European situation is that many Muslims in Europe have already voluntarily abandoned the aspects of Islam that are least compatible with western traditions. Even so, they are treated like second-class citizens!
What is so wrong about Switzerland's minaret ban and the rhetoric coming out of France is that there is nothing wrong with minarets or veils and no reason to consider banning them...the only reason the issue of banning has been raised is because minarets and veils are associated with Islam. If, for instance, there were something inherently troubling about minarets and veils then they could have been banned before the influx of Muslim immigrants even started so those immigrants would have known what to expect. Religious tolerance doesn't mean "anything goes" -- followers of Thuggee can't murder with impunity just because their faith tells them to do so. Banning harmless religious practices, though, is simply a way of banning a form of religion indirectly. Besides that, it even infringes on the rights of non-Muslims: what if you want to wear a burka or build a minaret just for the heck of it (or because you're making a movie set in an Islamic country)? Free countries shouldn't have irrational restrictions like that.
I think it is fair to say that Europeans aren't necessarily intolerant by nature. Hating something because you feel it has no right to exist is somewhat different from fearing something because you feel it threatens your right to exist. Many Europeans are concerned about maintaining their national and religious identities and view influxes of immigrants as a threat to that. I don't think that point of view should be condemned out of hand, though you can certainly argue that immigrants can become good, patriotic citizens and that no nation is "pure." The fundamental reason immigration is such a hot issue around the world, though, is that immigration policies typically have little to do with public sentiment. Governments by their nature always want larger populations. They struggle mightily to cut back on spending in response to declining populations and declining revenues. Immigration is a convenient way to keep populations growing and most countries are well aware of that...Japan is one of the few remaining industrialized countries to literally restrict immigration out of principle despite a declining population. Still, it would be far more moral to have restrictive immigration policies than to infringe on the religious rights of immigrants once they have arrived in and settled down in a new country. It simply isn't fair to open up the borders of your country, let people in from all over the world, and then say, "Relinquish your beliefs and identities and mold yourselves in our images!" The Swiss and the French should really be fighting for control of their countries' immigration policies, not attacking the freedoms of their fellow citizens.
Although the United States' Muslim population is relatively small, I expect immigration will continue to be a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic throughout my lifetime. The same issues Europeans often have with Muslims native-born Americans often have with Hispanic immigrants. You hear the same arguments about culture and ways of life and the threat unbridled immigration poses...but less about religion because most Hispanics are Catholic, just like many native citizens. As more Muslims do immigrate to the US, I expect the religious arguments will crop up increasingly as well, despite the Constitution's protection of religious freedom. Many in America also feel that they don't have control over their country's immigration policies -- you can argue to an extent that the USA is a special case as a "nation of immigrants" but there have always been restrictions on immigration here, some blatantly racist, and there have always been political forces opposed to immigration. Although I'm personally proud of the United States' past embrace of immigrants from all corners of the globe, I do wonder if at some point we won't decide that we pretty much have enough people here already. The prospect of more space and less competition for resources is inherently tempting, even though settling for that form of utopia means that the Nikola Teslas and Werner von Brauns of the future will no longer come to our shores. If we do go down that route, however, I hope we can do it without punishing the immigrants who are already here and without making a mockery of a constitution that protects the basic rights of all citizens. Europe's solution may well turn out to be our own...I hope it turns out to be a reasonable one.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Jesse Ventura on the Draft
Jesse Ventura, former Reform Party governor of Minnesota, has returned to the public eye as the host of the new TV show, "Conspiracy Theory." It looks like it's going to be a pretty good series -- I saw the first episode -- and I would encourage anyone interested in recent conspiracy theories to give it a look. Ventura isn't quite the skeptic you'd think someone hosting a nationwide TV program would be so the show is pretty much mainstream America's first chance to hear conspiracy theories sympathetically presented. I'd prefer a more balanced presentation personally, but at least it's not the type of "These people are NUTS and DANGEROUS!" tripe you normally hear in media channels other than the Internet (where, bizarrely, everyone seems to believe in one conspiracy theory or another). The next episode is about 9/11 and I suspect will ruin any chance Ventura has to win political office in the future...well before the "teabaggers" earned the mockery of the political elite the 9/11 "truthers" were showered with ridicule. Ventura is definitely wary of the official version of the events of September 11th, 2001.
One side effect of Ventura's salvo into broadcasting is that he's been doing a lot of interviews and talking about a lot of different things. I think he knows that he is one of America's most colorful political figures and I think he also realizes that the reason some people are going to tune into "Conspiracy Theory" is purely because of him. What better way to promote a controversial show than to stir up some political controversy? Ventura's controversial issue of choice at the moment seems to be the military draft. As a former Navy SEAL and previous supporter of an all-volunteer military, Ventura is an unlikely advocate for a return to the draft. Nonetheless, the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced the governor that regular Americans are too disconnected from the military effort. The solution, in his view, is to make sure more people have skin in the game by force via the draft. He even wants the burden to fall particularly hard on senators and representatives, who he thinks should have to name a person in their family to be eligible for immediate military service. Leave it to Jesse to make conscription even less ethical...he actually wants to allow members of Congress the ability to ship off their undesirable family members to war! "Cousin Johnny has caused nothing but problems for this family since the day he was born! One way ticket to Afghanistan, please."
I've heard Ventura's basic argument many times before, and I remain unconvinced of its merits. I think a lot of people, especially those who lived through the 60s and 70s, are angry that the American public isn't more upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars effectively ended Republican control of the government in my view, but it is true that Democratic control hasn't exactly brought an end to the fighting as voters have often picked more moderate Democrats over strongly anti-war ones. Certainly the level of protests against the war have never equaled what happened during the Vietnam War. There are two reasons why I feel the comparison to Vietnam is fatally flawed, however. For one thing, more than 58,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam -- roughly 5,000 (less than 10% of the Vietnam tally) have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there are more people living in the United States today than there were during the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have also affected fewer families (in terms of casualties...of course military families always suffer during wars even if their loved ones aren't killed in battle) as a percentage of the total population. Even if there were a draft going on today, I'd have expected there to be a much greater reaction to the Vietnam War than to Bush's wars simply due to the sheer numbers of casualties involved. My second beef with Ventura's argument is that it strongly implies that the draft makes waging war more difficult. Why, then, did conscription not prevent the Vietnam War to begin with? Why did it last so long despite all the protests? Why did hyper-aggressive dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler use conscription to fill the ranks of their enormous armies? Something doesn't add up here.
The morality of conscription is something Jesse Ventura barely touches on. I think that's because he's a political realist who thinks the government is in practice essentially permitted to do anything it wants...the only way to stop the government from doing something it wants to do is through popular resistance. Thus, Ventura thinks that doing something that on the surface seems to reduce an individual's freedom (allowing the government to force people into the military at will) can actually lead to more freedom down the line because of the resulting pushback and resistance. That's antithetical to the idea that there should be a limited government that is, like the citizenry themselves, itself constrained by laws. Personally, I don't want the government to violate an individual's rights even if that's popular at the time. Rather than reinstate the draft, it should be made illegal!
With all that said, I do think Governor Ventura has a point about the public's seemingly growing disinterest in the wars. There are still American soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan -- what right do we have to forget about the dangers they are facing just because we've got massive unemployment and other economic problems at home? Forgetting a war is never wise...wars have ways of forcing your attention towards them no matter how many other problems exist. People also seem to have forgotten the startlingly high numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unintentional as those deaths may be, they nonetheless call into question the very idea of a "virtuous" and "justified" war.
One side effect of Ventura's salvo into broadcasting is that he's been doing a lot of interviews and talking about a lot of different things. I think he knows that he is one of America's most colorful political figures and I think he also realizes that the reason some people are going to tune into "Conspiracy Theory" is purely because of him. What better way to promote a controversial show than to stir up some political controversy? Ventura's controversial issue of choice at the moment seems to be the military draft. As a former Navy SEAL and previous supporter of an all-volunteer military, Ventura is an unlikely advocate for a return to the draft. Nonetheless, the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced the governor that regular Americans are too disconnected from the military effort. The solution, in his view, is to make sure more people have skin in the game by force via the draft. He even wants the burden to fall particularly hard on senators and representatives, who he thinks should have to name a person in their family to be eligible for immediate military service. Leave it to Jesse to make conscription even less ethical...he actually wants to allow members of Congress the ability to ship off their undesirable family members to war! "Cousin Johnny has caused nothing but problems for this family since the day he was born! One way ticket to Afghanistan, please."
I've heard Ventura's basic argument many times before, and I remain unconvinced of its merits. I think a lot of people, especially those who lived through the 60s and 70s, are angry that the American public isn't more upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars effectively ended Republican control of the government in my view, but it is true that Democratic control hasn't exactly brought an end to the fighting as voters have often picked more moderate Democrats over strongly anti-war ones. Certainly the level of protests against the war have never equaled what happened during the Vietnam War. There are two reasons why I feel the comparison to Vietnam is fatally flawed, however. For one thing, more than 58,000 American soldiers died in Vietnam -- roughly 5,000 (less than 10% of the Vietnam tally) have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because there are more people living in the United States today than there were during the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have also affected fewer families (in terms of casualties...of course military families always suffer during wars even if their loved ones aren't killed in battle) as a percentage of the total population. Even if there were a draft going on today, I'd have expected there to be a much greater reaction to the Vietnam War than to Bush's wars simply due to the sheer numbers of casualties involved. My second beef with Ventura's argument is that it strongly implies that the draft makes waging war more difficult. Why, then, did conscription not prevent the Vietnam War to begin with? Why did it last so long despite all the protests? Why did hyper-aggressive dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler use conscription to fill the ranks of their enormous armies? Something doesn't add up here.
The morality of conscription is something Jesse Ventura barely touches on. I think that's because he's a political realist who thinks the government is in practice essentially permitted to do anything it wants...the only way to stop the government from doing something it wants to do is through popular resistance. Thus, Ventura thinks that doing something that on the surface seems to reduce an individual's freedom (allowing the government to force people into the military at will) can actually lead to more freedom down the line because of the resulting pushback and resistance. That's antithetical to the idea that there should be a limited government that is, like the citizenry themselves, itself constrained by laws. Personally, I don't want the government to violate an individual's rights even if that's popular at the time. Rather than reinstate the draft, it should be made illegal!
With all that said, I do think Governor Ventura has a point about the public's seemingly growing disinterest in the wars. There are still American soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan -- what right do we have to forget about the dangers they are facing just because we've got massive unemployment and other economic problems at home? Forgetting a war is never wise...wars have ways of forcing your attention towards them no matter how many other problems exist. People also seem to have forgotten the startlingly high numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unintentional as those deaths may be, they nonetheless call into question the very idea of a "virtuous" and "justified" war.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sarah Palin's Political Future
Sarah Palin has proven to be one of the most mercurial of political figures of our day. She burst on the national scene as John McCain's surprise vice presidential pick and proceeded to make numerous friends as well as foes with her brand of conservative populism. A series of political gaffes brought a lot of media attention to her -- perhaps more than was really warranted for a VP pick -- but ultimately I don't think she can be blamed for her ticket's general election failure. The 2008 election was more about Barack Obama and George W. Bush than John McCain...I think any Republican would have had an uphill battle trying to win over a Bush-weary electorate while facing such a skilled campaigner as President Obama. In 2008, I saw no reason Sarah Palin couldn't build on her newfound popularity and be a serious political contender in the future despite her loss. In 2009, I've started to doubt that possibility.
I remember how people accused Fred Thompson of being too lazy to become president in 2008. He didn't like campaigning or doing all the little things that win campaigns, political wonks said. They may well have been right about Fred -- his presidential campaign didn't really get off the ground. He actually seemed to do better before he started running! I suspect Sarah Palin is in the same mold. The fact that she was caught off-guard in interviews seemed to suggest a lack of preparation which at the time I chalked up to nervousness and inexperience. Her decision to resign as Alaska's governor this year, though, is hard to defend politically. You can be a governor and a national figure at the same time -- heck, Mrs. Palin was Alaska's governor WHILE running for vice president! The way she just left office abruptly without serving out her term makes me seriously doubt how much Palin really enjoys the process of governing. Any political heat she felt in Alaska as governor would pale in (no pun intended) comparison to what she'd get in Washington as president. By resigning as governor, she made me wonder about her willingness to stay the course and deal with the nitty gritty of national politics. In fact, I thought at the time she might be quitting politics altogether. However, she's quickly written a new book, Going Rogue, which is largely about the campaign and is currently hitting the news circuit pretty hard. Maybe she's just trying to make her voice heard and make some money at the same time, but my guess is a 2012 Palin presidential run is still quite possible.
Can she win the Republican nomination if she does run? I do think she remains personally popular, and I actually think a voter who likes a politician personally is going to be a more loyal voter for a candidate than one who votes on ideological grounds. For example, the people who voted for Barack Obama because they liked who he was as a man most probably still like him; those who voted for him because he supported universal health care without individual mandates or thought he would rapidly bring the troops home are probably feeling more disenchanted at the moment. I think Palin's going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already like her, though. She'll need to work hard and do a lot of preparatory work no matter how against her nature that is -- she'll have to anticipate and plan how to deal with tough questions like, "Since you quit as governor, how do we know you won't quit as president, too?" I definitely wouldn't want to be her going into the campaign, but perhaps she can make things easier for herself by what she does outside of politics over the next couple of years. People do forget, after all, even though we have YouTube to remind us of stuff now. However, if other former governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee run in 2012 (and Tim Pawlenty is another possibility), they'll be able to contrast their gubernatorial records with that of Sarah Palin...I think they'll come out well ahead in that comparison. She can brush a lot under the rug, but perhaps not quitting as governor.
Ultimately, polling may be what decides the issue. I wouldn't put much weight on the early early polls that have been conducted this year that have tended to show Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as leading contenders. What will matter is who emerges after the 2010 midterm elections with serious intent to run -- I suspect some shadow names being floated at the moment, like Newt Gingrich, will vanish by then. If an early favorite or two seems disinterested in running and a lesser known figure like Pawlenty remains relatively low profile, I think Palin may very well throw her hat in the ring and see what happens. I don't, however, think she'll win. She might be better off running for Congress in Alaska and trying to rebuild her political career that way...or else just enjoy private life and make the most of her celebrity. I have to give her credit, though, for keeping everyone guessing. That, arguably, is her greatest talent!
I remember how people accused Fred Thompson of being too lazy to become president in 2008. He didn't like campaigning or doing all the little things that win campaigns, political wonks said. They may well have been right about Fred -- his presidential campaign didn't really get off the ground. He actually seemed to do better before he started running! I suspect Sarah Palin is in the same mold. The fact that she was caught off-guard in interviews seemed to suggest a lack of preparation which at the time I chalked up to nervousness and inexperience. Her decision to resign as Alaska's governor this year, though, is hard to defend politically. You can be a governor and a national figure at the same time -- heck, Mrs. Palin was Alaska's governor WHILE running for vice president! The way she just left office abruptly without serving out her term makes me seriously doubt how much Palin really enjoys the process of governing. Any political heat she felt in Alaska as governor would pale in (no pun intended) comparison to what she'd get in Washington as president. By resigning as governor, she made me wonder about her willingness to stay the course and deal with the nitty gritty of national politics. In fact, I thought at the time she might be quitting politics altogether. However, she's quickly written a new book, Going Rogue, which is largely about the campaign and is currently hitting the news circuit pretty hard. Maybe she's just trying to make her voice heard and make some money at the same time, but my guess is a 2012 Palin presidential run is still quite possible.
Can she win the Republican nomination if she does run? I do think she remains personally popular, and I actually think a voter who likes a politician personally is going to be a more loyal voter for a candidate than one who votes on ideological grounds. For example, the people who voted for Barack Obama because they liked who he was as a man most probably still like him; those who voted for him because he supported universal health care without individual mandates or thought he would rapidly bring the troops home are probably feeling more disenchanted at the moment. I think Palin's going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already like her, though. She'll need to work hard and do a lot of preparatory work no matter how against her nature that is -- she'll have to anticipate and plan how to deal with tough questions like, "Since you quit as governor, how do we know you won't quit as president, too?" I definitely wouldn't want to be her going into the campaign, but perhaps she can make things easier for herself by what she does outside of politics over the next couple of years. People do forget, after all, even though we have YouTube to remind us of stuff now. However, if other former governors like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee run in 2012 (and Tim Pawlenty is another possibility), they'll be able to contrast their gubernatorial records with that of Sarah Palin...I think they'll come out well ahead in that comparison. She can brush a lot under the rug, but perhaps not quitting as governor.
Ultimately, polling may be what decides the issue. I wouldn't put much weight on the early early polls that have been conducted this year that have tended to show Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as leading contenders. What will matter is who emerges after the 2010 midterm elections with serious intent to run -- I suspect some shadow names being floated at the moment, like Newt Gingrich, will vanish by then. If an early favorite or two seems disinterested in running and a lesser known figure like Pawlenty remains relatively low profile, I think Palin may very well throw her hat in the ring and see what happens. I don't, however, think she'll win. She might be better off running for Congress in Alaska and trying to rebuild her political career that way...or else just enjoy private life and make the most of her celebrity. I have to give her credit, though, for keeping everyone guessing. That, arguably, is her greatest talent!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Narrowing the Gap vs Raising the Floor
I've noticed that there is a lot of political angst about the rising gap between the rich and the poor, but I've long wondered if that GAP is what is really important. Some political thinkers definitely believe it is. They want to narrow this gap essentially as a matter of principle in the belief that it is immoral for so much of the wealth of a nation to be controlled by so few. They view the social problems in a country, such as unemployment and lack of access to health care, as largely resulting from this gap. However, the way I see it there will always be a large income gap among people in any economic system where people can act more or less freely; the person who saves or invests wisely is going to have more income in the long run on average than the person who spends and consumes wildly. Not everyone even wants to be rich. Sure, most everyone would opt for great wealth if it was as simple to obtain as pressing a button, but many wouldn't sacrifice the time they spend with their families or their hobbies or social commitments just to make a lot more money. Rather than focusing on a gap that naturally arises among people with varying interests, I tend to think the major goal should be to improve the living conditions for the poorest among us so that no one does without necessities. In short, I think we should focus on raising the floor rather than narrowing the gap. Both naturally can happen at the same time, but it's also quite possible to narrow the gap -- any destruction of wealth will do that -- without raising the floor.
Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.
To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?
Thus, I fundamentally reject the idea that narrowing the gap between rich and poor is inherently a good thing in and of itself. Some progressives would like to see a return to 90% marginal tax rates just to make the rich pay their "fair share." Realistically, I think in practice this would create a huge incentive for tax evasion, a huge disincentive for trying to become rich (which typically involves taking on risk, like starting a business which creates jobs), and an opportunity for other countries to lure wealthy American citizens to greener pastures. It would also give the state a heck of a lot of money to do whatever it wants with; historically, at least, waging war and building ever larger bureaucracies have been two of the state's favorite things...much more so than benefiting the poor. Instead of approaching societal problems from the standpoint of trying to hurt the rich (and fill the state's coffers in the process), we should instead think first about helping those who need help the most in whatever way we can.
To me, that means focusing on necessities first. If basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are ubiquitous and affordable, everyone will have a decent place to launch from. There's more than one way to increase access to necessities, and it can be done by the private sector as easily as the public sector...I don't think the source is as important as the actual solution of the underlying problems. However, we also don't want the cure to cause as many problems as the disease. I wonder, for instance, what allowing the government to force people to buy health insurance will lead to...is it just the start of many more mandated expenses in the future as corporations and the government tag team the citizenry? I think we are definitely trading our freedom for safety which is always a dangerous proposition. Meanwhile, the underlying health care and health insurance bubble hasn't burst, and it's definitely not the only bubble still growing in this economy. Why, for instance, should a person be in debt for the rest of their lives because they want to own a home built decades ago or attend a university their grandparents were able to attend by paying their own way? Some necessities have simply grown too expensive (necessities have by definition inelastic demand...people want them regardless of price), and both the public and private sectors have teamed up to keep prices high. The concept of housing as an investment has been destructive to the concept of housing as shelter, but Fannie Mae's guaranteeing mortgages in the name of increasing access to housing has also artificially kept housing prices high. Even now, the government is actively fighting house price deflation when that is just what should be happening! I'm always interested in hearing new and innovative government solutions to problems, but for now I still think our best hope comes from technology (imagine new, cheaper ways of building homes becoming mainstream...plus robots to build them), free and competitive markets, and vigorous nonprofits if we want to improve access and affordability at the same time. I have no confidence the government won't just end up narrowing a relatively unimportant gap without actually making individual lives better. What's the use of a better Gini index if it doesn't translate into truly better living conditions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)