To an extent, I feel like some of the impressions I get out of any particular presidential debate are pretty random. Sometimes a great performance or an eloquent phrase does get imprinted in my memory by virtue of its quality, but I often can't really explain why it is I pay more or less attention to a particular candidate or a particular topic in a particular debate. It's like trying to explain why the characters in James Joyce's Ulysses suddenly start thinking in Italian or start reciting enormous lists of random things. I felt my impressions of tonight's Republican YouTube debate were particularly scattered and random, so I will forgo any attempt to declare any candidate a debate winner or loser. I'm happy to share a slightly stream-of-consciousness report on tonight's debate, though.
For some reason, the candidate I found myself thinking about the most tonight was Mitt Romney, a person I've barely mentioned in this blog to this point. In particular, it struck me that though Romney is the candidate most attacked for flipflopping he is essentially running as an uncompromising conservative, someone who is a hardliner with a rigid ideology. The attacks on Romney continued tonight; as usual, his changing stances on abortion and gay marriage were challenged, and John McCain chastised the former Massachusetts governor's tentative handling of the issue of waterboarding. While Romney can look uncomfortable at times when answering certain questions, it takes a lot to actually phase the man for more than 10 or 15 seconds; I certainly didn't think any attacks tonight really put a visible cramp in Romney's style though they certainly may have an impact on how voters perceive him. As experienced as Dodd and Biden and McCain and Paul are, it is Romney who out of all the candidates seems to be the most polished, consummate politician to me. He honestly sounds as convincing expressing a pro-life point of view now as he did expressing a pro-choice point of view in a video clip shown during the debate from years ago. He doesn't really sound like a guy who would change his mind on the issue now, but he didn't sound like he was about to change his mind then either! During the course of the debate, Romney adopted rigid, legalistic positions on several issues that admitted the existence of no gray areas. While Mike Huckabee thought a distinction needed to be made between the children of illegal immigrants who had no choice but to follow their parents into this country and those illegal immigrants who consciously crossed the border of their own volition, Romney refused to acknowledge that a child was any less an illegal immigrant than his or her parents. Similarly, Romney seemed to not even consider the morality of detaining terrorists in Guantanamo when he discussed that issue -- he saw no need to justify a practice that was part of the War on Terror even though it is very much a moral issue to some people. Romney often expresses rather than explains and seems to prefer to be perceived as confident rather than as thoughtful. That really has nothing to do with Romney's particular take on the issues and everything to do with how Romney has chosen to conduct the campaign. Tom Tancredo, for instance, is surely the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration that is running for president, but he has thousands of reasons he feels the way he does and he is eager to make his case wherever and whenever he can.
Fred Thompson, meanwhile, is about as rough a politician as Mitt Romney is smooth. He really didn't come as advertised -- in spite of the acting experience, Thompson doesn't deliver smooth, well-rehearsed lines and a steady supply of sound bites. Instead, he rambles and says "uh" a lot. And he has a good sense of humor. He's pretty...human. Is he Reaganesque? Well, he is an actor and is surprisingly pretty down-to-Earth, but that's about it for the Reagan connection. He just hasn't been the dynamo that some people were expecting him to be; if he does end up winning the Republican nomination, I predict he'll win it slowly and steadily without many fireworks. He seems comfortable with attacking politics, so I think Giuliani and Romney will definitely feel Senator Thompson nipping at their heels at least through the early primary season.
It was John McCain's turn to attack Ron Paul tonight. Paul has received a lot of attention because his policies are so unlike the policies of the other candidates, so it seems only natural that the other candidates should challenge him when he expresses views so unlike their own, and at least one candidate invariably does in each debate. Each time these challenges actually happen, though, it seems to always sound like a mean bully is picking on the idealistic underdog; McCain didn't exactly escape this image by essentially accusing Paul of adhering to the same policies that led to World War II. Sometimes I think politicians should always consider what the reaction to their words would be like if they expressed their thoughts directly. McCain's direct argument would probably have gone like this: "You know that fringe anti-war candidate, Ron Paul? His crazy anti-war rhetoric is going to lead us into a world war like what happened when we ignored Hitler! Only a hawk like me can be trusted to keep us out of big wars by making us fight lots of little ones! A vote for Paul is a vote for WORLD WAR!" McCain's argument may have some merit, but he was definitely picking on the little, albeit growing, guy here and the Arizona senator ended up sounding very speculative. Mean and speculative isn't an election-winning combo, I don't think.
That's all I've got for tonight.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Snipers and Thinkers
The Democratic presidential candidates gathered tonight in Las Vegas for another debate with memories of the year's most contentious debate last month in Philadelphia still fresh in many minds. Although Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have been the media and poll darlings for most of the year, open warfare between the three has erupted only relatively recently. Personally, I've found this trio's squabbles rather grating and tiresome in large part because there seems to be so little that is genuine about any of it. Obama and Edwards are attacking Clinton because she is ahead in the polls; Clinton is counterattacking Obama and Edwards because they threaten to eat into her lead. The genuinely angry man in this race, Mike Gravel, hasn't even been invited to the last couple of Democratic debate; the pale flames of Obama and Edwards' indignation would easily be engulfed by the roaring fire of Gravel's frustrated populism. Much of what we see from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is strategic sniping. The issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good example of this. Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give a value judgment on this issue garnered public criticism from Obama, yet Obama also seemed rather uncomfortable addressing the very same issue in tonight's debate! True, Obama gave a direct answer -- he supports the idea -- but he seemed as frightened to be seen as taking a strong stand on this issue as Hillary Clinton was. To me, this trivialized the whole controversy over Hillary's previous vacillating; the whole thing was an excuse to attack Hillary, not so much about the issue itself which is clearly a difficult one for both candidates. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was able to answer the question unequivocally and thoroughly. In fact, the early Hillary/Barack/John sniping in this debate probably did more to make Bill Richardson and Joe Biden look good than it did to help any of the disputants. By staying out of the fray and sounding disapproving of the political games taking part on the stage, Biden and Richardson played the roles of wise statesmen. Unluckily for them, the debate grew less negative as it continued on, and each member of the main trio had a few good moments. Hillary Clinton, in particular, seemed much more confident and comfortable even when under fire in this debate, a much-needed performance following her weak showing in Philadelphia.
I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!
I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Constitution, LEAVE ARNOLD ALONE!
The United States Constitution is explicit about just who is allowed to become a president, a senator, or a representative. The presidency, for instance, can only be held by someone who is 35 years old or older. That's an arbitrary limit, of course -- if a 35 year old can be a good president, then surely a 34 year old could be, too. More important than the number 35 is the implication that someone who is old enough to be a senator or a representative might not be old enough to be president; the presidency is for the experienced. One reason John Cox has failed to get much real recognition from the media (or from this blog, for that matter) as he has pursued the Republican presidential nomination is the fact that he has never held a major political office. He's not taken seriously -- he's not seen as "presidential" -- even though he is old enough to hold the office. Fewer people would so cavalierly dismiss an immigrant candidate for president such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as not being fit for the office, but the Constitution is bold enough to do just that. Article II, Section 1 states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." There is not much wiggle room here at all: presidents have to at least be 35 and they have to be natural born: no youngsters and no immigrants need apply.
Frankly, there is something discriminatory about the restrictions the Constitution places on who can be president. Simply put, all citizens are not allowed the same freedom to seek the highest public offices because of what the Constitution says. Are these limits on individual liberty reasonable and just or arbitrary and discriminatory? It is particularly hard for me to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the immigrant restriction -- that amendment declares that naturalized citizens ARE citizens of the United States. That is, a natural reading of the 14th Amendment suggests to me that there should be no difference between a naturalized citizen who immigrated to the United States from another country and a citizen who was born in the United States. Yet Article II, Section 1 forces naturalized citizens to be "citizens with an asterisk," like other citizens in most every respect except that they cannot become president. This seems a far cry from true equality under the eyes of the law.
The Constitution is not just a work of philosophy, however. It might seem more in keeping with the central themes of the Constitution to allow anyone to run for president, but there is at least one pragmatic reason why it might not be wise to do so. As I mentioned previously, the age restriction encourages the experienced to seek the presidency; these folks aren't necessarily the best-suited to the job, but at least they have records of public service which can be studied and judged. The immigrant restriction, on the other hand, probably is less a signal to people in the United States as it is to people who are outside it: it makes it more difficult for a foreign government to install a puppet as president. This may sound a little ridiculous, but I can imagine something like that happening (it certainly has historical precedent in other nations), especially if the foreign government finds an effective way of funneling funds into the United States in order to support their candidate. It would be difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- to fool the American people, the government, and the media all at once, to be sure, but this scenario is still scary to me even if it is improbable. Additionally, it perhaps would have been easier for a foreign government to install a puppet at certain periods of American history than it would be now; that doesn't mean the Constitution is outmoded since it could be that America will again become more vulnerable to this in the future. My point is that the immigration restriction on who can be president probably has much more to do with domestic security than deliberately enshrined discrimination.
Discriminate it does, however. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a popular and dynamic governor, may well never be able to run for president even though he'd likely be a strong candidate; while personal views on the California governor vary wildly, isn't it a little disheartening to think that we would never even get the chance to consider supporting his candidacy without the Constitution being first amended? It's not as if Arnold is the only immigrant in politics, either; many otherwise exceptional candidates are undoubtedly barred by the Constitution from even seeking the presidency. While the Constitution may be saving the United States from being taken over from within by Austria, it is also denying Americans an opportunity to vote for good candidates. In my opinion, it would be better to combat foreign interference in American politics in other ways rather than make naturalized citizens less than natural born citizens.
Frankly, there is something discriminatory about the restrictions the Constitution places on who can be president. Simply put, all citizens are not allowed the same freedom to seek the highest public offices because of what the Constitution says. Are these limits on individual liberty reasonable and just or arbitrary and discriminatory? It is particularly hard for me to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the immigrant restriction -- that amendment declares that naturalized citizens ARE citizens of the United States. That is, a natural reading of the 14th Amendment suggests to me that there should be no difference between a naturalized citizen who immigrated to the United States from another country and a citizen who was born in the United States. Yet Article II, Section 1 forces naturalized citizens to be "citizens with an asterisk," like other citizens in most every respect except that they cannot become president. This seems a far cry from true equality under the eyes of the law.
The Constitution is not just a work of philosophy, however. It might seem more in keeping with the central themes of the Constitution to allow anyone to run for president, but there is at least one pragmatic reason why it might not be wise to do so. As I mentioned previously, the age restriction encourages the experienced to seek the presidency; these folks aren't necessarily the best-suited to the job, but at least they have records of public service which can be studied and judged. The immigrant restriction, on the other hand, probably is less a signal to people in the United States as it is to people who are outside it: it makes it more difficult for a foreign government to install a puppet as president. This may sound a little ridiculous, but I can imagine something like that happening (it certainly has historical precedent in other nations), especially if the foreign government finds an effective way of funneling funds into the United States in order to support their candidate. It would be difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- to fool the American people, the government, and the media all at once, to be sure, but this scenario is still scary to me even if it is improbable. Additionally, it perhaps would have been easier for a foreign government to install a puppet at certain periods of American history than it would be now; that doesn't mean the Constitution is outmoded since it could be that America will again become more vulnerable to this in the future. My point is that the immigration restriction on who can be president probably has much more to do with domestic security than deliberately enshrined discrimination.
Discriminate it does, however. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a popular and dynamic governor, may well never be able to run for president even though he'd likely be a strong candidate; while personal views on the California governor vary wildly, isn't it a little disheartening to think that we would never even get the chance to consider supporting his candidacy without the Constitution being first amended? It's not as if Arnold is the only immigrant in politics, either; many otherwise exceptional candidates are undoubtedly barred by the Constitution from even seeking the presidency. While the Constitution may be saving the United States from being taken over from within by Austria, it is also denying Americans an opportunity to vote for good candidates. In my opinion, it would be better to combat foreign interference in American politics in other ways rather than make naturalized citizens less than natural born citizens.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Larry Craig's Dilemma
I have no doubt that many politicians take their role of "public servant" very seriously, but at the same time I think even the most idealistic public servant must also recognize that politics is a career not so unlike other professions. It's no coincidence that Chris Dodd and Mitt Romney followed in their fathers' footsteps by becaming politicians; were they not merely continuing the family business as many children do? Certainly politics is a strange sort of business in that it has a penchant for attracting diverse members of other professions; the presidential race is a good example of this for though the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker have yet to enter the race, the doctor, the lawyer(s), the businessman, the soldier, and the preacher are just a few of the current candidates who are currently seeking the presidency. On the other hand, Larry Craig is an example of a politician who has spent most of his life in politics -- he is a career politician if there ever was one. His name has become associated with scandal and hypocrisy, but the senator from Idaho is ignoring all calls for his resignation and attempting to hold on to his political career for dear life...perhaps, in part, because he has no other career to fall back on.
All things considered, I consider the act which has led to Senator Craig's fall from grace to be, if Craig did indeed commit it, a rather slight offense, though shameful for a married man that publically espouses "family values." Accused of soliciting sex in a public bathroom, Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now maintains his innocence and is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in what will likely be a protracted legal fight. The sordid details of the case have captivated the media's imagination, but frankly solicitations that are much more direct and public occur in bars, clubs, and on college campuses every day. It would seem unfair to me to end someone's career for a single offense of that nature, but this is another example of how politics can differ from other professions. There seems to be no rule as to whether a politician can survive a scandal, no matter how mild or horrendous the offense; some, like Ted Kennedy, have thrived post-scandal while others, like Dan Crane, have been essentially forced to give up politics altogether. It has been hinted in some media reports that Craig will not seek reelection, so perhaps he won't even give the public a chance to reevaluate his character and worth as a candidate...but he still faces a dilemma regarding his immediate future in politics. Members of the Republican Party have called for Craig to resign in light of the scandal, ostensibly for the good of the party; Craig, however, has stated that he would like to complete his term and clear his name, despite having previously announced that he intended to resign in September.
Should Senator Craig stay or go? I think the answer to the question depends on whether we think of Craig as a public servant or as a man. Craig the public servant is clearly hampered by the scandal -- he has shocked constituents and angered colleagues. Even if he does somehow prove himself innocent, his willingness to plead guilty falsely and to change his mind both on his plea and resignation is not likely to impress anyone. Can he effectively serve under these circumstances? On the other hand, the remainder of Craig's present term could be his last moment in the public spotlight; it is likely the last gasp of a long career. No wonder he wants to do everything he can to heal a reputation and secure a legacy. While it would be nice for Craig to put the public interest ahead of his personal interests, it's doubtful that Craig's decision will have any major impact on the nation. So I can't fault him too much for acting as he has, because he is first and foremost a human being...it's just that politics happens to be his career, and that makes everything difficult!
All things considered, I consider the act which has led to Senator Craig's fall from grace to be, if Craig did indeed commit it, a rather slight offense, though shameful for a married man that publically espouses "family values." Accused of soliciting sex in a public bathroom, Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now maintains his innocence and is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in what will likely be a protracted legal fight. The sordid details of the case have captivated the media's imagination, but frankly solicitations that are much more direct and public occur in bars, clubs, and on college campuses every day. It would seem unfair to me to end someone's career for a single offense of that nature, but this is another example of how politics can differ from other professions. There seems to be no rule as to whether a politician can survive a scandal, no matter how mild or horrendous the offense; some, like Ted Kennedy, have thrived post-scandal while others, like Dan Crane, have been essentially forced to give up politics altogether. It has been hinted in some media reports that Craig will not seek reelection, so perhaps he won't even give the public a chance to reevaluate his character and worth as a candidate...but he still faces a dilemma regarding his immediate future in politics. Members of the Republican Party have called for Craig to resign in light of the scandal, ostensibly for the good of the party; Craig, however, has stated that he would like to complete his term and clear his name, despite having previously announced that he intended to resign in September.
Should Senator Craig stay or go? I think the answer to the question depends on whether we think of Craig as a public servant or as a man. Craig the public servant is clearly hampered by the scandal -- he has shocked constituents and angered colleagues. Even if he does somehow prove himself innocent, his willingness to plead guilty falsely and to change his mind both on his plea and resignation is not likely to impress anyone. Can he effectively serve under these circumstances? On the other hand, the remainder of Craig's present term could be his last moment in the public spotlight; it is likely the last gasp of a long career. No wonder he wants to do everything he can to heal a reputation and secure a legacy. While it would be nice for Craig to put the public interest ahead of his personal interests, it's doubtful that Craig's decision will have any major impact on the nation. So I can't fault him too much for acting as he has, because he is first and foremost a human being...it's just that politics happens to be his career, and that makes everything difficult!
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Modern Militia
"The Militia" is referred to several times in the United States Constitution, but it is rarely mentioned in modern American political discourse. Nonetheless, the citizen armies of the states do continue to exist; the United States Code deems all members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia to be part of the organized militia and all male citizens or intended male citizens who are at least 17 but not yet 45 years of age to be part of the unorganized militia. Thus, I am a member of the militia myself merely by virtue of my American citizenship, my gender, and my age! As a newly realized militiaman, I thought it would be worthwhile to devote a blog post to the concept and role of the militia in the United States.
The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?
I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).
While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.
Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.
The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?
I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).
While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.
Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The All-American Presidential Forums, Republican Edition
The All-American Republican Presidential Forum was an excellent showcase of what a small debate can offer. It will perhaps be remembered as the most unusual nationally televised debate of this presidential campaign since it failed to attract any of the top Republican candidates, yet in terms of content and the pictures it offered of each participating candidate's entire platform it will likely rank among the best in quality. By forcing each candidate to answer each question, the Forum defied the tired pattern that Republican debates have tended to follow so far. Thus, instead of just hearing Ron Paul rage about Iraq and Tom Tancredo decry illegal immigration we also got to listen to them talk about topics like health care and the justice system. It was a nice change.
Given moderator Tavis Smiley's public suggestion that the missing Republicans were choosing to ignore minority voters by not attending the debate, it was only natural for the candidates who did show up to attempt to show themselves as concerned about minority issues and solicitous of minority votes, but some made more of an effort than others. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in particular seemed to make a point of adopting a conciliatory and concerned tone throughout the debate. On the other hand, Tom Tancredo -- the surprise attendee who had earlier in the week suggested the debate wasn't worth his time because the top tier candidates wouldn't be attending -- tried to downplay the relevance of race to several issues raised in the debate, including the high rate of unemployment amongst black high school graduates which he linked to illegal immigration. Ron Paul seemed to fluctuate between these two approaches; at times he seemed like a pure idealogue, entirely concerned with message and not audience, but he also freely criticized manifestations of racism in the justice system in regards to the drug war and the death penalty. Duncan Hunter played the historian throughout the debate, proudly recounting the Republican Party's history of being a champion of African Americans, but he kept mentions of race to a minimum when discussing issues. In contrast, Alan Keyes mentioned race incessantly and seemed at times to be addressing his answers entirely to the black community, though the content of his message did not differ much from what he says in other venues.
While three of the Republicans at the Forum are commonly considered religious conservatives, the difference between Alan Keyes on one hand and Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback on the other was readily apparent. Keyes attempted to turn the conversation towards "family values" issues at every step of the way, similar to how Tancredo continually linked illegal immigration to other issues. Huckabee and Brownback on the other hand seem to be quite content to talk about other issues in their own context without injecting a family values or religious conservative agenda into everything they say. Keyes' focus on marriage and family as the panacea to cure society's ills makes me wonder if a person like me, who is unmarried and has no children and is not thinking about getting married or having children, even exists in his world. While Huckabee impressed me with his analysis of the justice system and his idea for including photo ID production as part of mobile voter registration and Brownback surprised me with his concept of instituting an optional flat tax in economically depressed areas to stir up growth, Keyes focused his eloquence squarely on promoting a family values agenda. Ultimately, I don't think a one-dimensional candidate is very likely to win a presidential election, but Keyes clearly has a role to play in this campaign: he alone of all the Republicans will inject Christian conservative ideas into debate even when it is not all that convenient to do so, and he will also freely criticize other Republicans for not following his lead.
I never expected to be saying this, but I honestly thought Huckabee and Brownback performed far better than the other candidates. I've praised Huckabee before, but Brownback was something of a revelation to me; he performed about ten times better in this debate than in any previous Republican debate I've seen. The tone those two adopted which I mentioned earlier may have contributed to their performance, as they did seem to be very comfortable with the venue. I think Huckabee is the most well-spoken of the Republican candidates, and it is very difficult to put him in an uncomfortable rhetorical position (this quality is reminiscent to me of former president Bill Clinton), but I have noticed he can also be Clintonesque in the Hillary fashion at times. When he talked about improving employment opportunities for minorities, I really had no idea what he had in mind...that's just too vague, pretty words which fail to hold even a promise of a solution. If Huckabee is planning on a new Works Progress Administration in the inner cities, I think we need to know about that right now! Huckabee I thought also had the worst moment of the debate because he used a question about Darfur as an excuse to start talking about abortion and poverty in America. The idea that Americans have problems at home is a valid reason why America should not focus its resources so much elsewhere, but Darfur is one of the great tragedies of our time and shouldn't be brushed aside because abortion is legal in the United States! I don't support American military intervention in Darfur, either, but hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and there should be recognition of that fact whenever Darfur is discussed.
Ron Paul doggedly put forward his views as he always does, but he seemed a little bit tired in this debate to me. No matter -- Paul has never been the smoothest speaker around, but he will still keep talking about liberty to whoever will listen. As I mentioned previously, this debate was good because it forced candidates like Paul and Tancredo to weigh in on a variety of issues, not just a single "pet" issue. We did see a glimpse of the softer side of Paul here, the Ron Paul who became opposed to the death penalty when he realized innocent people were being convicted and killed...but the glimpse was fleeting. Paul is uncompromising in his support for individual liberty and the free market, and his message doesn't really change from venue to venue. This debate, though, may have shed some light on some of Paul's stances that may not often be heard elsewhere: his dislike of minimum wage laws and his opposition to a national ID card, for instance.
Duncan Hunter is one of the more enigmatic figures in this presidential race. He seems to be the one guy out there who is really enjoying himself and is utterly indifferent to the poll numbers and amount of support he receives. There's a twinkle in his eye as he speaks about defense, military strategy, and the border fence; it is noticeably absent at times when some other topics come up. This was Hunter's strongest debate by far, as he showed a nice sense of humor and a good knowledge of history to go along with his focus on national security and illegal immigration. Alas, he was also the only guy to get challenged by the moderator for not answering a question directly; Hunter is definitely a candidate who has a set of core issues he really cares about and a pile of "other" issues he approaches gingerly at best. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hunter get a cabinet position if the next president is Republican. Personally, I think he should start writing novels about espionage and covert military operations, perhaps set in the Cold War era. I made a feeble joke in my last post about Hunter generating excitement, but I have to admit that line about driving a "humanitarian corridor" across Sudan was kind of exciting, though I don't exactly know what would be involved in that process.
In short, the All-American Republican Presidential Forum was a successful debate even without the top tier Republicans. Brownback and Huckabee distinguished themselves above the rest of the pack, but the other candidates also performed well. Alan Keyes embraced his role as a virulent champion of family values. Ron Paul continued to preach liberty. Tom Tancredo blamed much of the country's ills on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter made us laugh and feel protected. Most importantly, though these guys did pretty much what they always do, we got a deeper glimpse of their entire platform because of the questions which were asked and the time these second tier candidates were allowed to speak. If you missed the debate, you can watch it online, read a transcript, or listen to a podcast by visiting the official web site of the All-American Presidential Forums.
Given moderator Tavis Smiley's public suggestion that the missing Republicans were choosing to ignore minority voters by not attending the debate, it was only natural for the candidates who did show up to attempt to show themselves as concerned about minority issues and solicitous of minority votes, but some made more of an effort than others. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback in particular seemed to make a point of adopting a conciliatory and concerned tone throughout the debate. On the other hand, Tom Tancredo -- the surprise attendee who had earlier in the week suggested the debate wasn't worth his time because the top tier candidates wouldn't be attending -- tried to downplay the relevance of race to several issues raised in the debate, including the high rate of unemployment amongst black high school graduates which he linked to illegal immigration. Ron Paul seemed to fluctuate between these two approaches; at times he seemed like a pure idealogue, entirely concerned with message and not audience, but he also freely criticized manifestations of racism in the justice system in regards to the drug war and the death penalty. Duncan Hunter played the historian throughout the debate, proudly recounting the Republican Party's history of being a champion of African Americans, but he kept mentions of race to a minimum when discussing issues. In contrast, Alan Keyes mentioned race incessantly and seemed at times to be addressing his answers entirely to the black community, though the content of his message did not differ much from what he says in other venues.
While three of the Republicans at the Forum are commonly considered religious conservatives, the difference between Alan Keyes on one hand and Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback on the other was readily apparent. Keyes attempted to turn the conversation towards "family values" issues at every step of the way, similar to how Tancredo continually linked illegal immigration to other issues. Huckabee and Brownback on the other hand seem to be quite content to talk about other issues in their own context without injecting a family values or religious conservative agenda into everything they say. Keyes' focus on marriage and family as the panacea to cure society's ills makes me wonder if a person like me, who is unmarried and has no children and is not thinking about getting married or having children, even exists in his world. While Huckabee impressed me with his analysis of the justice system and his idea for including photo ID production as part of mobile voter registration and Brownback surprised me with his concept of instituting an optional flat tax in economically depressed areas to stir up growth, Keyes focused his eloquence squarely on promoting a family values agenda. Ultimately, I don't think a one-dimensional candidate is very likely to win a presidential election, but Keyes clearly has a role to play in this campaign: he alone of all the Republicans will inject Christian conservative ideas into debate even when it is not all that convenient to do so, and he will also freely criticize other Republicans for not following his lead.
I never expected to be saying this, but I honestly thought Huckabee and Brownback performed far better than the other candidates. I've praised Huckabee before, but Brownback was something of a revelation to me; he performed about ten times better in this debate than in any previous Republican debate I've seen. The tone those two adopted which I mentioned earlier may have contributed to their performance, as they did seem to be very comfortable with the venue. I think Huckabee is the most well-spoken of the Republican candidates, and it is very difficult to put him in an uncomfortable rhetorical position (this quality is reminiscent to me of former president Bill Clinton), but I have noticed he can also be Clintonesque in the Hillary fashion at times. When he talked about improving employment opportunities for minorities, I really had no idea what he had in mind...that's just too vague, pretty words which fail to hold even a promise of a solution. If Huckabee is planning on a new Works Progress Administration in the inner cities, I think we need to know about that right now! Huckabee I thought also had the worst moment of the debate because he used a question about Darfur as an excuse to start talking about abortion and poverty in America. The idea that Americans have problems at home is a valid reason why America should not focus its resources so much elsewhere, but Darfur is one of the great tragedies of our time and shouldn't be brushed aside because abortion is legal in the United States! I don't support American military intervention in Darfur, either, but hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and there should be recognition of that fact whenever Darfur is discussed.
Ron Paul doggedly put forward his views as he always does, but he seemed a little bit tired in this debate to me. No matter -- Paul has never been the smoothest speaker around, but he will still keep talking about liberty to whoever will listen. As I mentioned previously, this debate was good because it forced candidates like Paul and Tancredo to weigh in on a variety of issues, not just a single "pet" issue. We did see a glimpse of the softer side of Paul here, the Ron Paul who became opposed to the death penalty when he realized innocent people were being convicted and killed...but the glimpse was fleeting. Paul is uncompromising in his support for individual liberty and the free market, and his message doesn't really change from venue to venue. This debate, though, may have shed some light on some of Paul's stances that may not often be heard elsewhere: his dislike of minimum wage laws and his opposition to a national ID card, for instance.
Duncan Hunter is one of the more enigmatic figures in this presidential race. He seems to be the one guy out there who is really enjoying himself and is utterly indifferent to the poll numbers and amount of support he receives. There's a twinkle in his eye as he speaks about defense, military strategy, and the border fence; it is noticeably absent at times when some other topics come up. This was Hunter's strongest debate by far, as he showed a nice sense of humor and a good knowledge of history to go along with his focus on national security and illegal immigration. Alas, he was also the only guy to get challenged by the moderator for not answering a question directly; Hunter is definitely a candidate who has a set of core issues he really cares about and a pile of "other" issues he approaches gingerly at best. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hunter get a cabinet position if the next president is Republican. Personally, I think he should start writing novels about espionage and covert military operations, perhaps set in the Cold War era. I made a feeble joke in my last post about Hunter generating excitement, but I have to admit that line about driving a "humanitarian corridor" across Sudan was kind of exciting, though I don't exactly know what would be involved in that process.
In short, the All-American Republican Presidential Forum was a successful debate even without the top tier Republicans. Brownback and Huckabee distinguished themselves above the rest of the pack, but the other candidates also performed well. Alan Keyes embraced his role as a virulent champion of family values. Ron Paul continued to preach liberty. Tom Tancredo blamed much of the country's ills on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter made us laugh and feel protected. Most importantly, though these guys did pretty much what they always do, we got a deeper glimpse of their entire platform because of the questions which were asked and the time these second tier candidates were allowed to speak. If you missed the debate, you can watch it online, read a transcript, or listen to a podcast by visiting the official web site of the All-American Presidential Forums.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Here Come New Challengers
The race for the Republican presidential nomination has been considerably more volatile than the Democratic race so far. While the withdrawals of Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson temporarily narrowed the field during the summer, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes have recently made their campaigns official, and Newt Gingrich has stated that he, too, will enter the race if he can raise $30 million dollars in three weeks. About all we need now is for Al Gore to enliven the Democratic side of things and we should have a presidential primary season for the ages on our hands. My guess is Gore and Gingrich won't end up as candidates, but I welcome Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes into the race. I'm particularly intrigued at the prospect of watching Keyes in future GOP debates. He is a charismatic firebrand and religious conservative who is not afraid of aggressive politics; I'm very curious to see if he will attack Rudy Giuliani and perhaps Mitt Romney more aggressively than Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have to this point.
The All-American Republican Presidential Forum this week should be a good showcase for Keyes as well as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Although Giuliani, Romney, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and (least forgivably, in my opinion) Fred Thompson will miss the debate that will be broadcast both on PBS and online, the second-tier candidates will have the stage to themselves on Thursday, September 27th, at 8 PM CST. While it is disappointing that all the top-tier candidates are skipping this debate considering that the Democratic version of this event was so well-attended, I am interested to see how this group of candidates takes advantage of the opportunity a small debate offers each of them. Perhaps even Duncan Hunter will generate some excitement! Stranger things have happened...I think.
The All-American Republican Presidential Forum this week should be a good showcase for Keyes as well as Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Although Giuliani, Romney, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and (least forgivably, in my opinion) Fred Thompson will miss the debate that will be broadcast both on PBS and online, the second-tier candidates will have the stage to themselves on Thursday, September 27th, at 8 PM CST. While it is disappointing that all the top-tier candidates are skipping this debate considering that the Democratic version of this event was so well-attended, I am interested to see how this group of candidates takes advantage of the opportunity a small debate offers each of them. Perhaps even Duncan Hunter will generate some excitement! Stranger things have happened...I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)