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.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
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?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Independents Rising
Every year is an election year. Although most political junkies are either still recovering from the drama of the 2008 presidential election or are already gearing up for the sure to be eventful 2010 midterm elections, there are also a few notable elections taking place here in 2009 in the United States. Political commentators, ever eager for new data to turn over and spin to their hearts' delight, feel these elections might just show whether the country is leaning more towards President Obama or more against him, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are successful. To me, however, the most interesting thing about the 2009 electoral season doesn't have to do with either the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather the fact that one independent candidate and one third party candidate have remained competitive in their races despite facing decidedly more established opposition.
The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, is competing with Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie for the office of governor in New Jersey. Polls have been all over the place for this election, with Daggett's support in particular proving variable -- at least one poll saw the independent pushing near 20% support, but others have him at less than 10% and pretty much out of striking distance. Which ever scenario is correct, Daggett is quite an interesting candidate. He's just what an independent candidate ought to be, in my view -- a candidate whose views don't fit neatly into a box. He's reminiscent to me of Ross Perot in some ways (though Jon Corzine is definitely the rich guy in the race in New Jersey...he spends millions on his political campaigns out of his own personal wealth), not so much in what he says but in his varied mix of stances on issues and his willingness to adopt new approaches to issues. He certainly has the most interesting approach to taxation. New Jersey's property taxes are among the highest in the nation on average and all three candidates acknowledge to some extent that that has some pernicious effects. Governor Corzine emphasizes the importance of providing relief to vulnerable groups who can't afford such high taxes. Christie absolutely does want to see property taxes fall (he is even more of a supporter of rebates than Corzine) and just about every other type of tax as well, and he's been extremely critical of Corzine's past tax-related actions and how they differed from his rhetoric. What Daggett wants to do, though, is something quite different. Like Christie, he does want property tax rates lower, but he actually is more a tax rearranger than a tax cutter at heart. Instead of having local governments rely so much on the property tax, he wants to increase the reach of the sales tax so that services provided by professionals like lawyers and accountants are also taxed in New Jersey. Now, a tax is a tax (and Christie has blasted Daggett as essentially being a tax and spender, too), but this change would seem to correct an inequity in the sales tax system and at the same time reduce the tax burden on property owners. Sales taxes, generally speaking, let taxpayers exert a greater degree of control on how much they pay than property taxes (at least for property owners), and in this case it's mainly professional services being taxed rather than strict necessities. Daggett's plan, however, does have the burden of being complicated and certainly will require local and state governments to see things eye to eye.
Independents are often viewed as spoiler candidates, and Chris Daggett has definitely been criticized as being one. I find it odd, however, that the general consensus seems to be that Daggett draws more votes away from Christie than Corzine. Daggett has some bold new ideas and isn't afraid to step on a few government toes, particularly in the education sector, but I'd say he leans a little more to the left than to the right politically speaking. He is pro gay marriage, pro-choice, a staunch environmentalist and advocate for green jobs, and pro gun control. While Christie isn't necessarily the polar opposite of Daggett on all those issues, I don't get why Christie supporters would be more apt to go to Daggett than Corzine supporters for ideological reasons...unless Corzine supporters are really, really passionate about their local property taxes. Although I talked about Daggett's different approach to taxation, he's definitely not some small government conservative. He does feel property taxes are too high around the state, but he welcomes the idea of raising other taxes: sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls. Christie is the only real across the board anti-tax candidate. What seems to have hurt Christie is his lack of specifics when it comes to describing how exactly he will reign in spending. New Jersey is already facing a serious budget shortfall; even Corzine's government has adopted austerity policies to deal with the mounting deficit. Every government would theoretically like to eliminate "waste", but it's not so easy to do for one man's waste is another's gravy train. Christie doesn't seem able to do the Ron Paul thing and whittle off the names of dozens of programs he wants to cut -- frankly, he seems more talk than action to me. Though a great debate attack dog, he has more bark than bite. He's also been hurt by the publicizing of an incident in which he escaped a ticket seemingly because of his position as U.S. Attorney...this matters particularly because there's been an awful lot of corruption uncovered among New Jersey politicians lately. On the other hand, I would describe Corzine's campaign as basically lackluster. It might not have a potentially fatal flaw like Christie's, but when you put it all together you get a very uninspiring whole. As an incumbent, Corzine must defend his record, but a campaign based on more of the same is pretty dull. What's more is that Corzine seems to have a tendency to dismiss problems as if they're irrelevant even though many people are very concerned about them. So Corzine expresses pride over New Jersey test scores while Christie and Daggett talk about a dangerously flawed and unequal system. Daggett's description of the way the graduation exam system works in NJ shocked me. Corzine also has a tendency to blame the current poor economic situation in Jersey largely on the overall financial crisis -- I'm sure that's largely true, but sometimes a recession can be something politicians use to hide behind so they don't have to address serious economic problems such as an unfriendly business climate that drives jobs away which is just what Christie thinks New Jersey has.
Can Daggett win? Only in a surprise based on polling data. At the end of the day, it IS hard to beat that two party system...even when you've presented the best campaign, as I think Daggett has. If Christie wins, I think the whole election will have the feel of a referendum on property taxes and on government spending. People will be voting in the hope the man can work miracles in office even as he has struggled to articulate concrete plans on the campaign trail. If Corzine wins, I think that shows that by and large New Jersey voters are content with their state's situation given the state of the nation. Something that Chris Christie said in the October 1st debate has stuck with me: he said that for every one government employee there are twenty one people in New Jersey. I don't know how mathematically accurate that statement is, but I think it sums up why it's so hard for big tax areas to change their levying ways. There are an awful lot of people invested in the status quo in New Jersey. Jon Corzine is their best bet to preserve that status quo. That alone could be enough to power him to victory. In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens and particularly how Daggett's independent campaign fares.
Another election being shaken up by an outsider candidate is the special election to name the next member of the House of Representatives from New York's 23d congressional district. Here the outsider, Doug Hoffman, has a party of sorts -- it's the Conservative Party of New York. It might not seem like a true third party in that it commonly endorses other candidates running as Republicans or Democrats provided they are deemed conservative enough, but from time to time candidates do run under its banner. That seems to have happened in NY-23 primarily because the Republican candidate for the House seat, Dede Scozzafava, was perceived as not being conservative enough primarily due to her stances on social issues and her ties to unions. Scozzafava got some early buzz online as a possible libertarian-leaning candidate because of her pledged support for low taxes and her socially liberal stance on gay marriage, but probably she's better described as a liberal Republican. I think she struggled to find an overarching theme to her campaign, and to a certain extent I think she didn't WANT to run the race she was forced to run. By that I mean I don't think she wanted to be the liberal Republican candidate; her campaign site doesn't seem to include anything about abortion, gay marriage, unions, etc. Instead she talks about pro-business policies, about support for tax cuts, about opposition to the Death Tax and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax, about supporting agriculture, and about protecting seniors. She and the Democratic candidate Bill Owens would likely have argued more about things like who would bring more jobs in to the district and just generally help the constituents out. Owens is naturally also pro-agriculture, and he has an interesting strategy of encouraging investment from Canada. Perhaps they would've scuffled a bit over health care reform -- Dede controversially suggested the "hurry" to change health care was unreasonable while Owens is a supporter of many of the proposed Democrat reforms (he's probably best considered as a moderate Democrat). Ultimately, though, the race wouldn't have been so much about ideology as it would have been about winning the trust of the voters and it would have been much more locally focused despite being a federal election. Doug Hoffman changed all that.
Hoffman seems to be both more ideological and national in his outlook than his two opponents. He opposes bailouts and loathed Obama's stimulus plan. He fervently opposes raising taxes and has signed a "No New Taxes" pledge. He is anti-earmarks. He's opposed to gay marriage. He is strongly pro-life. He's also squarely focused on continuing to fight the war on terror wherever those terrorists lurk. Hoffman is not nearly as unique a candidate as Chris Daggett; by and large, he seems to have many of the same political positions as most Republicans and frankly I'm not so sure he's any more sincere than most GOP politicians when it comes to fiscal issues. Unlike Scozzafava, though, he's ideologically pure from the Republican point of view which has led him to get all sorts of endorsements from well-known Republicans like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson...that is seriously unusual in the world of third party politics where candidates are often treated like pariahs by the establishment. He's also a contemporary conservative -- he's aware of the widespread resentment among conservatives towards the bailouts and free spending in Washington and was able to conflate Scozzafava's support for a New York state stimulus plan with support for Obama's national stimulus plan. If Hoffman wins, my guess is he'll be running for reelection as a regular Republican...with the reendorsement of the Conservative Party of New York, of course.
Unlike Daggett, Hoffman has a very good chance to win the election. The nominal Republican, Scozzafava, has suspended her campaign though she'll still be on the ballot...she had fallen to third place in the race according to polling. Hoffman's policies may not be all that unorthodox, but just the fact that he has managed to do so well and even thwart the hopes of the Republican candidate bodes well for the possibility of other third party and independent candidates also succeeding in American politics. Daggett's success has also been a net positive for much the same reasons. I'm also glad whenever the voters have more of a choice about who to vote for. One thing we can say about both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the NY-23 House race is that all the candidates have different views on some issue or another...hopefully fewer people than usual will have to hold their nose to vote this time around due to those extra options.
The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, is competing with Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie for the office of governor in New Jersey. Polls have been all over the place for this election, with Daggett's support in particular proving variable -- at least one poll saw the independent pushing near 20% support, but others have him at less than 10% and pretty much out of striking distance. Which ever scenario is correct, Daggett is quite an interesting candidate. He's just what an independent candidate ought to be, in my view -- a candidate whose views don't fit neatly into a box. He's reminiscent to me of Ross Perot in some ways (though Jon Corzine is definitely the rich guy in the race in New Jersey...he spends millions on his political campaigns out of his own personal wealth), not so much in what he says but in his varied mix of stances on issues and his willingness to adopt new approaches to issues. He certainly has the most interesting approach to taxation. New Jersey's property taxes are among the highest in the nation on average and all three candidates acknowledge to some extent that that has some pernicious effects. Governor Corzine emphasizes the importance of providing relief to vulnerable groups who can't afford such high taxes. Christie absolutely does want to see property taxes fall (he is even more of a supporter of rebates than Corzine) and just about every other type of tax as well, and he's been extremely critical of Corzine's past tax-related actions and how they differed from his rhetoric. What Daggett wants to do, though, is something quite different. Like Christie, he does want property tax rates lower, but he actually is more a tax rearranger than a tax cutter at heart. Instead of having local governments rely so much on the property tax, he wants to increase the reach of the sales tax so that services provided by professionals like lawyers and accountants are also taxed in New Jersey. Now, a tax is a tax (and Christie has blasted Daggett as essentially being a tax and spender, too), but this change would seem to correct an inequity in the sales tax system and at the same time reduce the tax burden on property owners. Sales taxes, generally speaking, let taxpayers exert a greater degree of control on how much they pay than property taxes (at least for property owners), and in this case it's mainly professional services being taxed rather than strict necessities. Daggett's plan, however, does have the burden of being complicated and certainly will require local and state governments to see things eye to eye.
Independents are often viewed as spoiler candidates, and Chris Daggett has definitely been criticized as being one. I find it odd, however, that the general consensus seems to be that Daggett draws more votes away from Christie than Corzine. Daggett has some bold new ideas and isn't afraid to step on a few government toes, particularly in the education sector, but I'd say he leans a little more to the left than to the right politically speaking. He is pro gay marriage, pro-choice, a staunch environmentalist and advocate for green jobs, and pro gun control. While Christie isn't necessarily the polar opposite of Daggett on all those issues, I don't get why Christie supporters would be more apt to go to Daggett than Corzine supporters for ideological reasons...unless Corzine supporters are really, really passionate about their local property taxes. Although I talked about Daggett's different approach to taxation, he's definitely not some small government conservative. He does feel property taxes are too high around the state, but he welcomes the idea of raising other taxes: sales taxes, gas taxes, tolls. Christie is the only real across the board anti-tax candidate. What seems to have hurt Christie is his lack of specifics when it comes to describing how exactly he will reign in spending. New Jersey is already facing a serious budget shortfall; even Corzine's government has adopted austerity policies to deal with the mounting deficit. Every government would theoretically like to eliminate "waste", but it's not so easy to do for one man's waste is another's gravy train. Christie doesn't seem able to do the Ron Paul thing and whittle off the names of dozens of programs he wants to cut -- frankly, he seems more talk than action to me. Though a great debate attack dog, he has more bark than bite. He's also been hurt by the publicizing of an incident in which he escaped a ticket seemingly because of his position as U.S. Attorney...this matters particularly because there's been an awful lot of corruption uncovered among New Jersey politicians lately. On the other hand, I would describe Corzine's campaign as basically lackluster. It might not have a potentially fatal flaw like Christie's, but when you put it all together you get a very uninspiring whole. As an incumbent, Corzine must defend his record, but a campaign based on more of the same is pretty dull. What's more is that Corzine seems to have a tendency to dismiss problems as if they're irrelevant even though many people are very concerned about them. So Corzine expresses pride over New Jersey test scores while Christie and Daggett talk about a dangerously flawed and unequal system. Daggett's description of the way the graduation exam system works in NJ shocked me. Corzine also has a tendency to blame the current poor economic situation in Jersey largely on the overall financial crisis -- I'm sure that's largely true, but sometimes a recession can be something politicians use to hide behind so they don't have to address serious economic problems such as an unfriendly business climate that drives jobs away which is just what Christie thinks New Jersey has.
Can Daggett win? Only in a surprise based on polling data. At the end of the day, it IS hard to beat that two party system...even when you've presented the best campaign, as I think Daggett has. If Christie wins, I think the whole election will have the feel of a referendum on property taxes and on government spending. People will be voting in the hope the man can work miracles in office even as he has struggled to articulate concrete plans on the campaign trail. If Corzine wins, I think that shows that by and large New Jersey voters are content with their state's situation given the state of the nation. Something that Chris Christie said in the October 1st debate has stuck with me: he said that for every one government employee there are twenty one people in New Jersey. I don't know how mathematically accurate that statement is, but I think it sums up why it's so hard for big tax areas to change their levying ways. There are an awful lot of people invested in the status quo in New Jersey. Jon Corzine is their best bet to preserve that status quo. That alone could be enough to power him to victory. In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens and particularly how Daggett's independent campaign fares.
Another election being shaken up by an outsider candidate is the special election to name the next member of the House of Representatives from New York's 23d congressional district. Here the outsider, Doug Hoffman, has a party of sorts -- it's the Conservative Party of New York. It might not seem like a true third party in that it commonly endorses other candidates running as Republicans or Democrats provided they are deemed conservative enough, but from time to time candidates do run under its banner. That seems to have happened in NY-23 primarily because the Republican candidate for the House seat, Dede Scozzafava, was perceived as not being conservative enough primarily due to her stances on social issues and her ties to unions. Scozzafava got some early buzz online as a possible libertarian-leaning candidate because of her pledged support for low taxes and her socially liberal stance on gay marriage, but probably she's better described as a liberal Republican. I think she struggled to find an overarching theme to her campaign, and to a certain extent I think she didn't WANT to run the race she was forced to run. By that I mean I don't think she wanted to be the liberal Republican candidate; her campaign site doesn't seem to include anything about abortion, gay marriage, unions, etc. Instead she talks about pro-business policies, about support for tax cuts, about opposition to the Death Tax and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax, about supporting agriculture, and about protecting seniors. She and the Democratic candidate Bill Owens would likely have argued more about things like who would bring more jobs in to the district and just generally help the constituents out. Owens is naturally also pro-agriculture, and he has an interesting strategy of encouraging investment from Canada. Perhaps they would've scuffled a bit over health care reform -- Dede controversially suggested the "hurry" to change health care was unreasonable while Owens is a supporter of many of the proposed Democrat reforms (he's probably best considered as a moderate Democrat). Ultimately, though, the race wouldn't have been so much about ideology as it would have been about winning the trust of the voters and it would have been much more locally focused despite being a federal election. Doug Hoffman changed all that.
Hoffman seems to be both more ideological and national in his outlook than his two opponents. He opposes bailouts and loathed Obama's stimulus plan. He fervently opposes raising taxes and has signed a "No New Taxes" pledge. He is anti-earmarks. He's opposed to gay marriage. He is strongly pro-life. He's also squarely focused on continuing to fight the war on terror wherever those terrorists lurk. Hoffman is not nearly as unique a candidate as Chris Daggett; by and large, he seems to have many of the same political positions as most Republicans and frankly I'm not so sure he's any more sincere than most GOP politicians when it comes to fiscal issues. Unlike Scozzafava, though, he's ideologically pure from the Republican point of view which has led him to get all sorts of endorsements from well-known Republicans like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson...that is seriously unusual in the world of third party politics where candidates are often treated like pariahs by the establishment. He's also a contemporary conservative -- he's aware of the widespread resentment among conservatives towards the bailouts and free spending in Washington and was able to conflate Scozzafava's support for a New York state stimulus plan with support for Obama's national stimulus plan. If Hoffman wins, my guess is he'll be running for reelection as a regular Republican...with the reendorsement of the Conservative Party of New York, of course.
Unlike Daggett, Hoffman has a very good chance to win the election. The nominal Republican, Scozzafava, has suspended her campaign though she'll still be on the ballot...she had fallen to third place in the race according to polling. Hoffman's policies may not be all that unorthodox, but just the fact that he has managed to do so well and even thwart the hopes of the Republican candidate bodes well for the possibility of other third party and independent candidates also succeeding in American politics. Daggett's success has also been a net positive for much the same reasons. I'm also glad whenever the voters have more of a choice about who to vote for. One thing we can say about both the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the NY-23 House race is that all the candidates have different views on some issue or another...hopefully fewer people than usual will have to hold their nose to vote this time around due to those extra options.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Can You Dislike Both Bush and Obama?
I've noticed that it's become common for Obama supporters to dismiss Obama critics by arguing that these critics aren't sincere because they said nothing as George W. Bush wreaked havoc on the nation. Obviously, this tactic does allow Obama supporters to avoid responding to individual criticisms, but there's certainly some validity to this idea. The two party system in the United States encourages the party faithful to ignore the failings of their own politicians yet make mountains out of molehills when it comes to even superficial blemishes of the opposition. Undoubtedly many Obama critics would say nothing if a Republican was in office and doing the very same thing. On the other hand, is it really so unreasonable that an individual -- not a dedicated follower of a particular party -- might dislike BOTH President Bush and President Obama?
I would say that yes, it is quite possible. In some ways, I even think it's quite a natural attitude to have. President Bush's greatest failings seem to me have been his push to war with Iraq, his general fiscal irresponsibility, and his disregard for civil liberties. President Obama has inherited and continued Bush's wars, he's not just continued on the path of big spending but pressed down the accelerator, and he has only done a little bit to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration in regards to civil liberties. Bush effectively had a cover for his wars and restrictions of liberty because of the nation's fear of terrorism. Obama effectively has a cover for his economic policies because of the recession. In both cases, I think there are legitimate reasons to question whether the pursued policies of both administrations were really the best thing for the country at the time.
Of course, there are differences between the two presidents as well. Bush earned much love by cutting taxes. Obama has tackled the issue of health care reform, which millions of Americans have been clamoring for for decades, more avidly than any other president. Bush preferred an aggressive foreign policy while Obama favors a conciliatory one, even to the point of not meeting with the Dalai Lama seemingly to placate China. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the majority of remaining support for Bush (and he's no longer a popular politician at all) boils down to the two issues of terrorism and taxation while support for Obama (who still is favored by the majority of Americans) is largely based on health care and the general hope for an expanded safety net. However, I'd say Obama and Bush have more similarities than they have differences overall. It's easy to mistakenly cast one or the other in a false political light. To say Bush didn't care about social issues, for instance, is to overlook his support (billions of dollars worth) for fighting AIDS in Africa, an unprecedented effort. Obama is sometimes presented as being "weak" on foreign policy, but during his presidency so far the image of America has improved globally.
So, I guess it all boils down to what really matters to you. If one or more of Bush's or Obama's pet issues are most important to you, there's a good chance you'll overlook their faults in other, less important (to you) areas. On the other hand, if you dislike big government spending and deficits, corporate bailouts, and wars that just keep going and going, you have every reason to dislike both presidents.
I would say that yes, it is quite possible. In some ways, I even think it's quite a natural attitude to have. President Bush's greatest failings seem to me have been his push to war with Iraq, his general fiscal irresponsibility, and his disregard for civil liberties. President Obama has inherited and continued Bush's wars, he's not just continued on the path of big spending but pressed down the accelerator, and he has only done a little bit to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration in regards to civil liberties. Bush effectively had a cover for his wars and restrictions of liberty because of the nation's fear of terrorism. Obama effectively has a cover for his economic policies because of the recession. In both cases, I think there are legitimate reasons to question whether the pursued policies of both administrations were really the best thing for the country at the time.
Of course, there are differences between the two presidents as well. Bush earned much love by cutting taxes. Obama has tackled the issue of health care reform, which millions of Americans have been clamoring for for decades, more avidly than any other president. Bush preferred an aggressive foreign policy while Obama favors a conciliatory one, even to the point of not meeting with the Dalai Lama seemingly to placate China. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the majority of remaining support for Bush (and he's no longer a popular politician at all) boils down to the two issues of terrorism and taxation while support for Obama (who still is favored by the majority of Americans) is largely based on health care and the general hope for an expanded safety net. However, I'd say Obama and Bush have more similarities than they have differences overall. It's easy to mistakenly cast one or the other in a false political light. To say Bush didn't care about social issues, for instance, is to overlook his support (billions of dollars worth) for fighting AIDS in Africa, an unprecedented effort. Obama is sometimes presented as being "weak" on foreign policy, but during his presidency so far the image of America has improved globally.
So, I guess it all boils down to what really matters to you. If one or more of Bush's or Obama's pet issues are most important to you, there's a good chance you'll overlook their faults in other, less important (to you) areas. On the other hand, if you dislike big government spending and deficits, corporate bailouts, and wars that just keep going and going, you have every reason to dislike both presidents.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Obama Administration Takes on Fox News
The American public has recently received a series of news flashes from the White House warning them that Fox News -- ostensibly just another cable news network, albeit one proudly carrying a slogan of being "fair and balanced" -- is in fact biased (it has a "perspective" according to Rahm Emanuel...scary!) and should not be considered to be a legitimate news organization but rather as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. The Obama team evidently considers informing the public as to Fox News' true identity to be a matter of prime national importance: thus, we've heard administration figures such as Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod weigh in on the subject. Even the president himself has spoken out on the matter. The problem here is that all this isn't news to anyone: I'd think that everyone who has ever watched Fox News for an appreciable amount of time knows it has a perspective and a bias and does not quite live up to its slogan...they don't even have a single non-neocon opinion show host anymore since Alan Colmes stopped co-hosting with Sean Hannity. However, most sensible newshounds realize that virtually every news organization has a "perspective." Fox News tends to reflect a neoconservative point of view, MSNBC tends to reflect a progressive point of view, the Economist tends to advocate for free markets...is there anything really wrong with that as long as the facts presented are generally correct? I do think there is a lack of truly nonbiased reporting in the media, which is a shame (however, it's definitely not just a Fox problem), but I also appreciate being able to get my news from a variety of different viewpoints so I can see the issues from different sides. What the Obama administration seems to be saying is that some perspectives are legitimate and some are not -- in a democratic republic, I don't believe the government should be deciding that.
To be fair, it is very easy to make the administration's war of words against Fox into something it isn't. We're talking about public censure here, not censorship; there's been no discussion of the administration shutting Fox down thus far. Freedom of the press endures. In fact, the diatribes against Fox rather seem to lack teeth -- administration officials still want to appear on Fox News so the White House isn't even boycotting the network. Historically, presidents have often butted heads with the press. Obama is probably not thrilled to be lumped in with President Nixon and his notorious enemies' lists, but he might not mind sharing company with John Adams...Obama has actually been by far the least villainous towards the press of the trio so far, though he still has time to change that. To tell you the truth, this whole scenario has even reminded me of something our last president (you know, the one who butted heads with NBC) would pull off. Isn't President Obama essentially telling the press, "You're either with us or against us!"? While historically normal, it is still disturbing to me that this administration would go out of its way to try to discredit a particular news organization that has broken several stories that reflected negatively on the White House recently. The ACORN, Van Jones, and Anita Dunn controversies weren't all that big a deal in my view, but they certainly did deserve to be covered...Fox News is actually doing a good job of playing the role of presidential watchdog. They're keeping him honest and checking his power; that's one of the things the press is supposed to do. Does Fox always give president a fair shake? Heck no. They also sure didn't do an effective job of checking President Bush's power. At the end of the day, they ARE a bunch of neocons who'd like America to think just like they do. Nonetheless, they're the most important news organization in the country for the moment.
Obama apologists would argue that Fox News isn't being targeted because of its views but rather instead for its tactics. I definitely think it's a good idea for the administration to call out Fox News on actual factual errors. Certainly the network has been linked to unethical practices in the past such as displaying incorrect party affiliations on screen for scandal ridden Republican politicians. It's exceedingly hard to say what is the result of human error or newsroom shenanigans and what is a deliberate attempt to mislead and propagandize, however. Bias is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder -- for instance, conservatives often see the "mainstream media" as liberal and liberals often see it as conservative. When assessing bias, news watchers naturally consider intangibles like what isn't covered and to what extent something is covered. Some think Fox News showed a great deal of bias by giving so much coverage to the tea parties; others think it's other news sources that were biased for NOT covering the tea parties more. What I tend to think is that there's bias swirling all around the media world (and it's not necessarily organizational in nature -- individual reporters can be biased), but it's pretty hard to prove subtle bias conclusively. That's likely why the Obama attacks on Fox have been so lacking in substance so far.
Even if Fox News were worse than it is, I'm not sure I'd ever want the White House to enter the fray publicly in such a way as it has. Even a well-watched media outfit is nowhere near as powerful as the president. This is simply not a battle between equals -- it has made the president seem like a bully. Considering press censorship remains a huge problem in many areas of the world, I think it would be wise for all arms of government to refrain from attacking the press directly. Just speaking personally, this controversy has made me want to watch Fox News more. Watching Fox has become a REBELLIOUS thing to do! It's fighting the power! I can't believe I'm even saying that...it's amazing what a change in administration can do. I suppose there were political reasons for why the full court press was unleashed on Fox. For one thing, Obama's base of supporters seems to love it -- they've been bashing Fox News for being biased for years so this is official confirmation of something that was painfully obvious to them. Another bonus is that it has been a distraction from other issues. I don't believe there is any serious intent on the part of the administration to squelch freedom of the press. Instead, this has been a dog-and-pony show to take some time off the clock and allow the White House some breathing space. It's not easy to be in power in a free republic -- there are political forces that will resist everything you try to do and other political forces that will never be satisfied that you are doing enough. None of them will ever shut up...President Obama should just accept that and get back to work.
To be fair, it is very easy to make the administration's war of words against Fox into something it isn't. We're talking about public censure here, not censorship; there's been no discussion of the administration shutting Fox down thus far. Freedom of the press endures. In fact, the diatribes against Fox rather seem to lack teeth -- administration officials still want to appear on Fox News so the White House isn't even boycotting the network. Historically, presidents have often butted heads with the press. Obama is probably not thrilled to be lumped in with President Nixon and his notorious enemies' lists, but he might not mind sharing company with John Adams...Obama has actually been by far the least villainous towards the press of the trio so far, though he still has time to change that. To tell you the truth, this whole scenario has even reminded me of something our last president (you know, the one who butted heads with NBC) would pull off. Isn't President Obama essentially telling the press, "You're either with us or against us!"? While historically normal, it is still disturbing to me that this administration would go out of its way to try to discredit a particular news organization that has broken several stories that reflected negatively on the White House recently. The ACORN, Van Jones, and Anita Dunn controversies weren't all that big a deal in my view, but they certainly did deserve to be covered...Fox News is actually doing a good job of playing the role of presidential watchdog. They're keeping him honest and checking his power; that's one of the things the press is supposed to do. Does Fox always give president a fair shake? Heck no. They also sure didn't do an effective job of checking President Bush's power. At the end of the day, they ARE a bunch of neocons who'd like America to think just like they do. Nonetheless, they're the most important news organization in the country for the moment.
Obama apologists would argue that Fox News isn't being targeted because of its views but rather instead for its tactics. I definitely think it's a good idea for the administration to call out Fox News on actual factual errors. Certainly the network has been linked to unethical practices in the past such as displaying incorrect party affiliations on screen for scandal ridden Republican politicians. It's exceedingly hard to say what is the result of human error or newsroom shenanigans and what is a deliberate attempt to mislead and propagandize, however. Bias is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder -- for instance, conservatives often see the "mainstream media" as liberal and liberals often see it as conservative. When assessing bias, news watchers naturally consider intangibles like what isn't covered and to what extent something is covered. Some think Fox News showed a great deal of bias by giving so much coverage to the tea parties; others think it's other news sources that were biased for NOT covering the tea parties more. What I tend to think is that there's bias swirling all around the media world (and it's not necessarily organizational in nature -- individual reporters can be biased), but it's pretty hard to prove subtle bias conclusively. That's likely why the Obama attacks on Fox have been so lacking in substance so far.
Even if Fox News were worse than it is, I'm not sure I'd ever want the White House to enter the fray publicly in such a way as it has. Even a well-watched media outfit is nowhere near as powerful as the president. This is simply not a battle between equals -- it has made the president seem like a bully. Considering press censorship remains a huge problem in many areas of the world, I think it would be wise for all arms of government to refrain from attacking the press directly. Just speaking personally, this controversy has made me want to watch Fox News more. Watching Fox has become a REBELLIOUS thing to do! It's fighting the power! I can't believe I'm even saying that...it's amazing what a change in administration can do. I suppose there were political reasons for why the full court press was unleashed on Fox. For one thing, Obama's base of supporters seems to love it -- they've been bashing Fox News for being biased for years so this is official confirmation of something that was painfully obvious to them. Another bonus is that it has been a distraction from other issues. I don't believe there is any serious intent on the part of the administration to squelch freedom of the press. Instead, this has been a dog-and-pony show to take some time off the clock and allow the White House some breathing space. It's not easy to be in power in a free republic -- there are political forces that will resist everything you try to do and other political forces that will never be satisfied that you are doing enough. None of them will ever shut up...President Obama should just accept that and get back to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)