My entry, An Old Threat in a New Garb, was awarded First Prize in the New Threats to Freedom essay contest. The entry was a response to Christine Rosen's The New Behaviorists, an essay included in The New Threats to Freedom book. The original essay discussed how behavioral science is a growing threat to freedom, as policymakers attempt to rely upon "expert" knowledge to legislate individuals' behaviors.
The response argued that behavioral science is not intrinsically bad, but instead a new tool that is sometimes used for age-old purposes of control. Tracing the history of increasing government from FDR, the argument holds that "ideology of centralized elite-run planning has since remained a staple of the American landscape." While this ideology ebbs and flows in intensity of implementation and precise form, it has consistently been utilized by various policymakers.
Behavioral science is the newest form of this desire to control. But as the essay argues, proponents of freedom should be careful to avoid disparaging the science because of its inappropriate use. Behavioral science has much to offer and should not quickly be dismissed.
The full text of the essay can be read at New Threats to Freedom.
Showing posts with label essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label essay. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Entitlement State
The Wall Street Journal provides what they call "a short history of the entitlement state." Unsurprisingly, the essay concludes, "The looming debt downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no conceivable way those promises can be kept."
The Journal is right to peg so much of our dire fiscal straights on the over-inflated welfare state. Beginning under FDR in the 1940s, the WSJ tracks the growth of entitlements through LBJ's Great Society and the Social Security problems of the 1970s and then onto Obama's profligate spending today. While correctly arguing that the left's counter-argument of military spending is a red herring ("But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis."), the editorial is fair to pin some of the blame on the GOP.
To be fair, the blame cannot solely lie with politicians, but must also lie with the electorate who votes for politicians who swing perks their way. Individuals and groups across the political spectrum lobby politicians for special treatment, not realizing or simply not caring that someone else will have to pay for it. Even the most stalwart small-government folk are resistant to relinquishing the handouts that they receive (Medicare?).
This is a losing mentality - a short-sighted and fatal way-of-life. Americans have, for far too long, thought about the benefits they receive from the government separately from the costs that are required to pay for these perks. It has always been someone else or some other generation that will pay. But this model of government has proven it cannot endure for any prolonged period of time.
The fiscal sanity of our government and the future of the state demands that we, as a nation, rework our way of thinking. We have become far too comfortable, as individuals and a society, living beyond our means, but it cannot continue. Citizens need to reevaluate what they expect to have and what they want others to provide for them. Remember the government does not produce anything. Whatever is provided by the government comes in one end and, with some loss along the way, goes out the other.
Government should be restructured to perform the essential duties for which a government is needed; namely providing certain common goods (roads, defense, rule of law) that all citizens benefit from and are unsuccessfully provided by the private market. It should largely cease its role as a wealth re-distributor, both across time and class. Whatever the argument one has about this program or that program, the fact is they are unsustainable in our society. The welfare state has only been maintained over the past seven decades because of the wool over America's eyes - it has been stomached because nobody has been paying for the full extent of the entitlement state. This ultimate grand bargain has allowed politicians to appease both those who want more and those who do not want to pay more (oftentimes the same people). But the free lunch has ended and Americans must reconcile themselves to reality - we can never over the long-run get more than we produce. Americans must realize that government is not a magical tool to solve society's woes or to enact some vision of morality, but a limited means of coordinating essential services that a society needs.
The Journal is right to peg so much of our dire fiscal straights on the over-inflated welfare state. Beginning under FDR in the 1940s, the WSJ tracks the growth of entitlements through LBJ's Great Society and the Social Security problems of the 1970s and then onto Obama's profligate spending today. While correctly arguing that the left's counter-argument of military spending is a red herring ("But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis."), the editorial is fair to pin some of the blame on the GOP.
Mr. Bush and Republicans did prove after 9/11 that the Washington urge to spend and borrow is bipartisan. Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays on education, the most expensive transportation bill in history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the housing bubble. The GOP's blunder was refusing to cut domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. Guns and butter blowouts never last.Whatever nuanced disagreements one has with this argument, the fact is clear that the federal government is spending far beyond its means. Much of this is arguably the by-product of a process that encourages a lack of forward-thinking. The American system - and to some degree human nature - encourages politicians to dole out perks today while placing the costs on future citizens. As time progresses, entitlements are increasingly piled on and rarely are forward-looking politicians able to remove these newly constructed "rights". Political and moral arguments are marched out to defend these handouts and so the fiscal burden grows.
To be fair, the blame cannot solely lie with politicians, but must also lie with the electorate who votes for politicians who swing perks their way. Individuals and groups across the political spectrum lobby politicians for special treatment, not realizing or simply not caring that someone else will have to pay for it. Even the most stalwart small-government folk are resistant to relinquishing the handouts that they receive (Medicare?).
This is a losing mentality - a short-sighted and fatal way-of-life. Americans have, for far too long, thought about the benefits they receive from the government separately from the costs that are required to pay for these perks. It has always been someone else or some other generation that will pay. But this model of government has proven it cannot endure for any prolonged period of time.
The fiscal sanity of our government and the future of the state demands that we, as a nation, rework our way of thinking. We have become far too comfortable, as individuals and a society, living beyond our means, but it cannot continue. Citizens need to reevaluate what they expect to have and what they want others to provide for them. Remember the government does not produce anything. Whatever is provided by the government comes in one end and, with some loss along the way, goes out the other.
Government should be restructured to perform the essential duties for which a government is needed; namely providing certain common goods (roads, defense, rule of law) that all citizens benefit from and are unsuccessfully provided by the private market. It should largely cease its role as a wealth re-distributor, both across time and class. Whatever the argument one has about this program or that program, the fact is they are unsustainable in our society. The welfare state has only been maintained over the past seven decades because of the wool over America's eyes - it has been stomached because nobody has been paying for the full extent of the entitlement state. This ultimate grand bargain has allowed politicians to appease both those who want more and those who do not want to pay more (oftentimes the same people). But the free lunch has ended and Americans must reconcile themselves to reality - we can never over the long-run get more than we produce. Americans must realize that government is not a magical tool to solve society's woes or to enact some vision of morality, but a limited means of coordinating essential services that a society needs.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Redefining Poverty
There is a problem of definitions in American politics. Although not a new phenomenon, it is unfortunately one that is rarely discussed. In many instances, challenging the accepted political definition of certain words leads to harsh, acerbic, and often unwarranted attacks by those who wish to defend a political definition for their own partisan uses.
In a recent report, the Heritage Foundation has courageously taken a stand against the definition of one of these words - "Poverty". The abstract to the full report states the following:
The U.S. Census Bureau, which determines the poverty thresholds, bases their calculation of these thresholds on a 1963 study that looked at the Department of Agriculture's low cost food plan. Surprisingly, it was not designed to reflect the daily needs of an individual or family. "...[They] did not develop the poverty thresholds as a standard budget... a list of goods and services that a family of a specified size and composition would need to live at a designated level of well being."
While the Census Bureau's "poverty thresholds" are only used for statistical purposes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) further complicates issues by setting forth "poverty guidelines" for administrative purposes. While these are generally based on the Census Bureau's numbers they are modified for various programs (for instance scaled up by some percentage). These guidelines are what are used in most welfare programs.
Arguably both the Census Bureau's and HHS's definitions are exceedingly arbitrary. As the Heritage report empirically supports, far too many are able to achieve substantial luxuries while nevertheless being deemed poor by the government.
A secondary source of definitional challenge comes from politicians who often use the term "poverty" in a relative sense. A relative definition of poverty signifies that poverty is determined by some distance from a measure of "middle-class" - for instance the median income. This necessarily implies that the problem of poverty can never be solved, unless all incomes become very narrowly distributed around a median income. Taken to its logical conclusion, in some perverse world, poverty could easily be eradicated by evaporating the wealth of the richest in a country without any concomitant change in the position of the poorest. By thus diminishing the "wealth gap," relative poverty would no longer exist. Obviously such a precept is laughable - no state would be better off by removing wealth from society - but it nevertheless is the natural conclusion of a doctrine of relative poverty. In reality, "relative poverty" is nothing but a euphemism for "income inequality."
Instead, poverty should be measured in relation to what a person needs to achieve certain necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing. By using an such an absolute measure, poverty is defined by essential characteristics not an arbitrary statistical formulation or relative comparison. This is undoubtedly a more just definition of poverty and puts the state in a better position to provide resources to alleviate poverty. It also provides proponents of the welfare state with a better position from which to defend the need for state assistance in eradicating poverty.
[By claiming the American definition of poverty is wrong, one does not mean there are not people who truly are in need, nor that there are not those who are truly poor in America. But it does imply that a changed definition can have significant implications for welfare policies.]
It is to be expected that vested interests will attempt to avoid any discussion, let alone any changes to the definition of poverty. Expansive definitions of poverty allow numerous constituents (particularly but not exclusively of the Democrats) to gain benefits at the expense of others. It is unlikely that recipients of handouts (whether low- or high-income) will be willingly to abdicate their lucrative positions. This is unfortunate and unfair. In such times of economic difficulty and budgetary disorder it is necessary to carefully study if our current definitions and resulting policies have stepped beyond what is appropriate and into the realm of social and economic largess.
Arguably, much of our welfare state has become a system of wealth redistribution rather than a social safety net. This is not so much a critique of the concept of the welfare state but of its abuse to fulfill abstract notions of social justice. As Heritage points out, our working definition of poverty has become one much more about "income 'inequality'" than one of need. This has arguably caused the state to venture far outside of its appropriate bounds and has indubitably contributed to our expanding fiscal woes. According to the authors of the study, "President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new 'poverty' measure that deliberately severs all connection between 'poverty' and actual deprivation... giving the President public relations ammunition for his 'spread-the-wealth' agenda." A redefinition of "poverty" to more accurately reflect individuals' needs may not only help alleviate America's budgetary problems but allow a misappropriation of the system to revert to its moral underpinnings.
In a recent report, the Heritage Foundation has courageously taken a stand against the definition of one of these words - "Poverty". The abstract to the full report states the following:
For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.The report continues by discussing the standard of living experienced by most "poor" Americans and how high these are, both in historical comparisons and vis-à-vis other countries. It makes the key argument that there is a need to separate the truly destitute (eg. those that chronically lack shelter, food, or clothing) from those that are just defined as poor. Due to limited resources, this expansive definition of poverty has not only injured the truly destitute but provided for those that are arguably not needy.
The U.S. Census Bureau, which determines the poverty thresholds, bases their calculation of these thresholds on a 1963 study that looked at the Department of Agriculture's low cost food plan. Surprisingly, it was not designed to reflect the daily needs of an individual or family. "...[They] did not develop the poverty thresholds as a standard budget... a list of goods and services that a family of a specified size and composition would need to live at a designated level of well being."
While the Census Bureau's "poverty thresholds" are only used for statistical purposes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) further complicates issues by setting forth "poverty guidelines" for administrative purposes. While these are generally based on the Census Bureau's numbers they are modified for various programs (for instance scaled up by some percentage). These guidelines are what are used in most welfare programs.
Arguably both the Census Bureau's and HHS's definitions are exceedingly arbitrary. As the Heritage report empirically supports, far too many are able to achieve substantial luxuries while nevertheless being deemed poor by the government.
A secondary source of definitional challenge comes from politicians who often use the term "poverty" in a relative sense. A relative definition of poverty signifies that poverty is determined by some distance from a measure of "middle-class" - for instance the median income. This necessarily implies that the problem of poverty can never be solved, unless all incomes become very narrowly distributed around a median income. Taken to its logical conclusion, in some perverse world, poverty could easily be eradicated by evaporating the wealth of the richest in a country without any concomitant change in the position of the poorest. By thus diminishing the "wealth gap," relative poverty would no longer exist. Obviously such a precept is laughable - no state would be better off by removing wealth from society - but it nevertheless is the natural conclusion of a doctrine of relative poverty. In reality, "relative poverty" is nothing but a euphemism for "income inequality."
Instead, poverty should be measured in relation to what a person needs to achieve certain necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing. By using an such an absolute measure, poverty is defined by essential characteristics not an arbitrary statistical formulation or relative comparison. This is undoubtedly a more just definition of poverty and puts the state in a better position to provide resources to alleviate poverty. It also provides proponents of the welfare state with a better position from which to defend the need for state assistance in eradicating poverty.
[By claiming the American definition of poverty is wrong, one does not mean there are not people who truly are in need, nor that there are not those who are truly poor in America. But it does imply that a changed definition can have significant implications for welfare policies.]
It is to be expected that vested interests will attempt to avoid any discussion, let alone any changes to the definition of poverty. Expansive definitions of poverty allow numerous constituents (particularly but not exclusively of the Democrats) to gain benefits at the expense of others. It is unlikely that recipients of handouts (whether low- or high-income) will be willingly to abdicate their lucrative positions. This is unfortunate and unfair. In such times of economic difficulty and budgetary disorder it is necessary to carefully study if our current definitions and resulting policies have stepped beyond what is appropriate and into the realm of social and economic largess.
Arguably, much of our welfare state has become a system of wealth redistribution rather than a social safety net. This is not so much a critique of the concept of the welfare state but of its abuse to fulfill abstract notions of social justice. As Heritage points out, our working definition of poverty has become one much more about "income 'inequality'" than one of need. This has arguably caused the state to venture far outside of its appropriate bounds and has indubitably contributed to our expanding fiscal woes. According to the authors of the study, "President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new 'poverty' measure that deliberately severs all connection between 'poverty' and actual deprivation... giving the President public relations ammunition for his 'spread-the-wealth' agenda." A redefinition of "poverty" to more accurately reflect individuals' needs may not only help alleviate America's budgetary problems but allow a misappropriation of the system to revert to its moral underpinnings.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Escape Clause
In light of today’s meeting between congressional leaders and the White House over the debt ceiling and entitlement cuts, two Republican senators have voiced strong support for a balanced budget amendment. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) state that:
However while the merits of such an amendment are clear to nearly all on the right and the more sensible on the left, there is at least one potential drawback that needs to be considered in the language of any acceptable proposal. While in nearly all instances there really is no reason to maintain an imbalanced budget, there are a few possible exceptions to the rule. Any balanced budget amendment must include an escape clause in order to prevent hamstringing future leaders (or daresay lead to a repeal of this amendment).
The most obvious exception is the case of major war or national catastrophe. It would be extremely difficult for any country to wage a large scale war, like WWI or WWII, without resorting to debt. Not only would such a restriction be impractical, but it would arguably be immoral to prevent our leaders from taking necessary measures to protect the country.
Concomitantly, there is an argument to be made that the costs of such a war (WWIII) should be spread over multiple years, if not multiple generations. After all, the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII were not just for the benefit of their generation but their progeny as well. It may be impossible for future generations to shoulder past sacrifices in terms of lives; however, it is possible to spread the financial costs. Utilization of debt is a prime tool to balance the costs of such conflicts over multiple years and generations.
Obviously, such instances are exceptionally rare and thus the use of an “escape clause” would only be warranted under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the point remains that debt or even a deficit is not always a bad thing. In certain other instances such as significant national projects (how to define the worthy ones is a tough issue) and severe economic decline, deficit spending might have beneficial uses. Just like the responsible use of debt by the individual – a homeowner who takes on a mortgage or a student who takes out loans to pay for college – there are instances where government debt is acceptable, even beneficial.
Debt isn’t intrinsically bad. The excessive abuse of it is the problem. Funding programs (and entitlements) that the government should not even be involved in is bad. The current mentality of spending more than we produce on a yearly basis even goes beyond the Keynesian economics it purports to be based on (Keynes argued for deficit spending during economic downturns with surpluses in upturns, not deficit spending every year). Such a mentality needs to be eradicated and the balanced budget amendment is a fabulous way to do so. Politicians should just be careful that in their haste to solve a serious problem they don’t create a new one by failing to consider the potential benefits of debt. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is imperative if we are to provide continuity of fiscal responsibility, and ensure we never return to the recklessness of the past and present. It's time Congress passed the amendment and gave the states—and "We the People"—their say.The senators’ argument not only has wide support amongst the base and Republican politicians; all 47 GOP senators have endorsed such an amendment; but is sound and well articulated. The irresponsibility of continuous spending beyond our means is ruinous for the economic future of the United States. As Snowe and DeMint argue, “the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their [fiscal] responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”
However while the merits of such an amendment are clear to nearly all on the right and the more sensible on the left, there is at least one potential drawback that needs to be considered in the language of any acceptable proposal. While in nearly all instances there really is no reason to maintain an imbalanced budget, there are a few possible exceptions to the rule. Any balanced budget amendment must include an escape clause in order to prevent hamstringing future leaders (or daresay lead to a repeal of this amendment).
The most obvious exception is the case of major war or national catastrophe. It would be extremely difficult for any country to wage a large scale war, like WWI or WWII, without resorting to debt. Not only would such a restriction be impractical, but it would arguably be immoral to prevent our leaders from taking necessary measures to protect the country.
Concomitantly, there is an argument to be made that the costs of such a war (WWIII) should be spread over multiple years, if not multiple generations. After all, the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII were not just for the benefit of their generation but their progeny as well. It may be impossible for future generations to shoulder past sacrifices in terms of lives; however, it is possible to spread the financial costs. Utilization of debt is a prime tool to balance the costs of such conflicts over multiple years and generations.
Obviously, such instances are exceptionally rare and thus the use of an “escape clause” would only be warranted under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the point remains that debt or even a deficit is not always a bad thing. In certain other instances such as significant national projects (how to define the worthy ones is a tough issue) and severe economic decline, deficit spending might have beneficial uses. Just like the responsible use of debt by the individual – a homeowner who takes on a mortgage or a student who takes out loans to pay for college – there are instances where government debt is acceptable, even beneficial.
Debt isn’t intrinsically bad. The excessive abuse of it is the problem. Funding programs (and entitlements) that the government should not even be involved in is bad. The current mentality of spending more than we produce on a yearly basis even goes beyond the Keynesian economics it purports to be based on (Keynes argued for deficit spending during economic downturns with surpluses in upturns, not deficit spending every year). Such a mentality needs to be eradicated and the balanced budget amendment is a fabulous way to do so. Politicians should just be careful that in their haste to solve a serious problem they don’t create a new one by failing to consider the potential benefits of debt. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Monday, May 2, 2011
What's Next? Bin Laden's Death
Presidents Obama and Bush and their respective security and intelligence teams deserve a hearty round of applause for the death of Osama bin Laden last night. After nearly a decade of intelligence gathering and a successful special ops operation, the terrorist mastermind has finally been brought to justice. President Obama particularly deserves credit for executing an extra-judicial killing (the mission was to kill not capture) and handling the event with poise and respectability.
As news reports indicate, bin Laden was killed in a mid-afternoon raid of a compound inside Abbottabad, Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s head was holed up. After a 40 minute battle, Navy SEAL forces were successful in shooting bin Laden in a firefight. Intelligence officials, including CIA director Leon Panetta, were able to watch the operation on a live feed from Virginia. While bin Laden’s death is undoubtedly cause for celebration it raises a couple of “what next” questions.
First, the location of bin Laden’s compound raises some significant questions about Pakistan’s complacency. The compound, described as a near fortress-like facility with four to six meter thick walls topped with barbed wire is located in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Abbottabad is said to be an important seat of the Pakistani government. The building was only a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy, what BBC has called “the country's equivalent of West Point.”
Whether Pakistan knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts has yet to be determined, but obvious questions are buzzing around the media. It seems dubious that the world’s most wanted terrorist could be holed up in a fortress-like compound a mere 40 miles outside of the capital and across the street from a military college without someone in Pakistan’s government or in the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services notoriously known for their ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban) knowing.
Further news will undoubtedly come forward in the next few days. If it is true that Pakistan had knowledge of bin Laden’s location and failed to assist the United States, it will be impossible for the Obama administration to avoid severe political reprisals against the country. No country or group can be excused for aiding and abetting the world’s most wanted terrorist. While the US will still need to work with Pakistan in the fight against radical Islam, punitive measures would be essential.
Second, while bin Laden’s death is certainly a major win for the United States and the war on terrorism, the West should be careful to avoid reading too deep into its operational significance. There are still many terrorists who wish to see harm brought to America. Bin Laden was, in many ways, a figurehead and his incapacitation does not negate the broader threat. Today we can celebrate, but we must not let down our guard. Instead we must continue to fight those who wish to destroy our way of life. This is especially true in the near future, as security forces have been put on high alert for possible reprisal attacks. For many in the Islamic world, bin Laden was a hero and his death a major loss. The war on terrorism will not be won solely by killing major leaders, but by defeating the very ideology that underpins a hatred of the West.
First, the location of bin Laden’s compound raises some significant questions about Pakistan’s complacency. The compound, described as a near fortress-like facility with four to six meter thick walls topped with barbed wire is located in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Abbottabad is said to be an important seat of the Pakistani government. The building was only a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy, what BBC has called “the country's equivalent of West Point.”
Whether Pakistan knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts has yet to be determined, but obvious questions are buzzing around the media. It seems dubious that the world’s most wanted terrorist could be holed up in a fortress-like compound a mere 40 miles outside of the capital and across the street from a military college without someone in Pakistan’s government or in the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services notoriously known for their ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban) knowing.
Further news will undoubtedly come forward in the next few days. If it is true that Pakistan had knowledge of bin Laden’s location and failed to assist the United States, it will be impossible for the Obama administration to avoid severe political reprisals against the country. No country or group can be excused for aiding and abetting the world’s most wanted terrorist. While the US will still need to work with Pakistan in the fight against radical Islam, punitive measures would be essential.
Second, while bin Laden’s death is certainly a major win for the United States and the war on terrorism, the West should be careful to avoid reading too deep into its operational significance. There are still many terrorists who wish to see harm brought to America. Bin Laden was, in many ways, a figurehead and his incapacitation does not negate the broader threat. Today we can celebrate, but we must not let down our guard. Instead we must continue to fight those who wish to destroy our way of life. This is especially true in the near future, as security forces have been put on high alert for possible reprisal attacks. For many in the Islamic world, bin Laden was a hero and his death a major loss. The war on terrorism will not be won solely by killing major leaders, but by defeating the very ideology that underpins a hatred of the West.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Cheeseheads!!!
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) spoke eloquently (see below) about the ongoing debate over collective bargaining that has halted legislation in Wisconsin and seized the nation’s interest over the past few weeks. Walker, who has resolutely stood firm in his showdown with the Democrats, has proposed legislation that would not only require public unions to bear greater responsibility for certain benefits, but would also end the “right” of collective bargaining for public unions.
In reality there are two major issues at work. The first and most immediate is the budget issue. This has predictably been relatively uncontroversial. As most acknowledge, states across the country are in dire budgetary straits. Accordingly, the Wisconsin public unions have agreed to shoulder the increased responsibility for their fringe benefits.
It is, however, the second issue – namely the proposed abolition of collective bargaining for benefits – that has driven the unions into a fury and their Democratic supporters into Illinois. Democrats have become absolutely apoplectic about the attacks on their supposed rights, effectively shutting down the Wisconsin legislature and moving their foot-soldiers into the capitol building in Madison.
The battle is unsurprising, despite its contemptibility. It is natural to expect unions to defend the unjust handouts and special privileges conferred upon them by the power of the state and to stalwartly fight to prevent their eradication. Nevertheless, it is quite laudable that Governor Walker has had the fortitude to stand-up to the tyranny of collective bargaining and unions.
The argument for such a strong criticism of unions is simple. Unions, like any institution that has coercive power, can – and do – cause severe harm to others that may cross their paths. The unions have been afforded a rare opportunity to wield the coercive power that should only be possessed by governments (and even then in limited fashions). No other institution is granted such sweeping powers of coercion over private individuals. For instance, the automatic and mandatory deduction of union dues from paychecks is simply the power of taxation in private hands.
Furthermore, unions have severe distorting powers. They drive wages up and cause unemployment. A union is essentially a private club, established with explicit government approval, where benefits are unjustly taken from those who are excluded and given to those lucky enough to call themselves members. As Friedrich Hayek argues, the real crushing power of unions is not so much the power they have over their members, but the power they possess over those outside of the union. Not only is this arbitrary and uneconomical, it is blatantly unjust. No organization, whether union or otherwise, should be granted such powers of coercion.
For those union supporters who argue in terms of workers’ protections, their aims are noble yet misguided. Union-busting is about destroying a special interest, not about hurting workers. As Governor Walker argues, Wisconsin workers are comprehensively protected by a multitude of legislation - and rightly so. There is no dispute that workers, like other groups, should have protection from mistreatment. However, unions, due to the inherent harm caused by their coercive power, are simply not the proper forum for maintaining worker protections.
The battle against collective bargaining is a small step in the right direction. Unions should not be afforded any special privileges under the law. They should be allowed to exist like any private organization – free to assist their members in a variety of fashions but stripped of any pseudo-legal power over others. Governor Walker should be applauded for his resilience and justness in attacking a bastion of cronyism and illiberalism.
In reality there are two major issues at work. The first and most immediate is the budget issue. This has predictably been relatively uncontroversial. As most acknowledge, states across the country are in dire budgetary straits. Accordingly, the Wisconsin public unions have agreed to shoulder the increased responsibility for their fringe benefits.
It is, however, the second issue – namely the proposed abolition of collective bargaining for benefits – that has driven the unions into a fury and their Democratic supporters into Illinois. Democrats have become absolutely apoplectic about the attacks on their supposed rights, effectively shutting down the Wisconsin legislature and moving their foot-soldiers into the capitol building in Madison.
The battle is unsurprising, despite its contemptibility. It is natural to expect unions to defend the unjust handouts and special privileges conferred upon them by the power of the state and to stalwartly fight to prevent their eradication. Nevertheless, it is quite laudable that Governor Walker has had the fortitude to stand-up to the tyranny of collective bargaining and unions.
The argument for such a strong criticism of unions is simple. Unions, like any institution that has coercive power, can – and do – cause severe harm to others that may cross their paths. The unions have been afforded a rare opportunity to wield the coercive power that should only be possessed by governments (and even then in limited fashions). No other institution is granted such sweeping powers of coercion over private individuals. For instance, the automatic and mandatory deduction of union dues from paychecks is simply the power of taxation in private hands.
Furthermore, unions have severe distorting powers. They drive wages up and cause unemployment. A union is essentially a private club, established with explicit government approval, where benefits are unjustly taken from those who are excluded and given to those lucky enough to call themselves members. As Friedrich Hayek argues, the real crushing power of unions is not so much the power they have over their members, but the power they possess over those outside of the union. Not only is this arbitrary and uneconomical, it is blatantly unjust. No organization, whether union or otherwise, should be granted such powers of coercion.
For those union supporters who argue in terms of workers’ protections, their aims are noble yet misguided. Union-busting is about destroying a special interest, not about hurting workers. As Governor Walker argues, Wisconsin workers are comprehensively protected by a multitude of legislation - and rightly so. There is no dispute that workers, like other groups, should have protection from mistreatment. However, unions, due to the inherent harm caused by their coercive power, are simply not the proper forum for maintaining worker protections.
The battle against collective bargaining is a small step in the right direction. Unions should not be afforded any special privileges under the law. They should be allowed to exist like any private organization – free to assist their members in a variety of fashions but stripped of any pseudo-legal power over others. Governor Walker should be applauded for his resilience and justness in attacking a bastion of cronyism and illiberalism.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Egypt Aflame
As Egypt descends into greater chaos, the United States is left in the awkward position that generally befalls great powers when their dictator friends are driven from power. The tension between realist foreign policy and liberal democracy promotion is never starker. Whether to support the faltering Mubarak regime or defend the revolutionary movement’s democratic principles is the question that commands the discussion and astoundingly, in our increasingly partisan climate, has no party loyalty.
The arguments criss-cross the political landscape. For instance, the Washington Post’s liberal commentator, Richard Cohen, has told the Obama administration to “just shut up.” One of Israel’s leading papers, Ha’aretz, criticizes the president claiming “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt.” Alternatively, William Kristol, at the neoconservative Weekly Standard, urges Obama to do more to support the removal of the Egyptian leadership. Likewise, Francis Fukuyama argues that "liberals had better get organized" to build a new Egypt.
Understandably, the administration is cautious. The United States’ course of action could have severe implications for the fate of the region and American interests. However, a reluctance to place all bets on one side or the other is not the same as inaction. While in recent days the president has, after Mubarak effectively tendered his upcoming resignation (he will not run for reelection in September), come out in support of a peaceful transition, the administration has failed to develop a successful political stance that will allow the best possible result for Egypt and America’s interests. Instead, it largely remains on the sidelines, watching and waiting.
The tension between courses of action is clear. On the one hand, there is security in stability. Hosni Mubarak, for all his domestic flaws, is a known entity. He has been a reliable ally and supposedly kept the worst enemies – currently the Muslim Brotherhood – from dominating Egypt. (This is debatable as some argue that he has aided the Brotherhood’s cause in order to have a bogeyman that will maintain America’s support for his regime.) Since the most established political opposition consists of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the fear is that Mubarak’s fall will lead to an Islamist state, reminiscent of the Iranian regime which overthrew the Shah in 1979 and remains in power today. Proponents of supporting Mubarak fear the worst outcome – replacing a friendly, undemocratic dictator with an unfriendly, (nominally) democratic, Islamist state.
This stands in sharp contrast to the principle of democracy-promotion, which emphasizes the spread of liberal values that so many Americans hold dear. These arguments, which come both from the left and the neocon right, argue that establishing true democracy is, in addition to being morally right, necessary for US security. From this perspective, steps should be taken to facilitate and aid the pro-democracy forces, allowing the dictatorship to be replaced with a system that will not only be democratic, but remain friendly to the West.
The US is thus stuck in an uncomfortable position. If it backs Mubarak, it will be accused of abandoning its principles and solidify its label as an enemy of the Egyptian people. If the current regime – with or without Mubarak – maintains power, the US will “win” in the short-run, yet inevitably rack-up indubitable costs to be paid when the regime ultimately falters. On the other hand, if despite US support for the regime, the revolution wins the fight, the Muslim Brotherhood will gather enough fodder to portray the clash as the West versus Islam, all but solidifying their ascent.
Conversely, if the administration completely abandons the Egyptian leadership, throwing its weight behind the revolution, it runs the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. The revolution could turn in favor of the Brotherhood or take a more Western-oriented path to democracy. Furthermore, such vocalized support from America could have a wider effect of destabilizing the regimes across the Middle East. The unknowns are incalculable and potential deadly.
So what is the administration to do? Certainly, it cannot, as Cohen argues, just sit on the sidelines and watch. Instead, it must do what it can to coax the best possible outcome, namely a liberal democracy, while minimizing the likelihood of the worst outcome, an Islamist state run by the Muslim Brotherhood. For better or worse, the middle outcome – a Western allied dictatorship – is no longer an option. Even if the current regime hangs on through this upheaval, it will only be a matter of time before the people rise again.
Practically, the administration needs to express the need for institutionalized democracy. The US (and Europe) must lend support to anyone within Egypt who desires to build democratic institutions. Institutions that provide checks and balances and diffusion of power must be established. This will give structure to an emerging democracy, put the US on the side of the people (as it should be), and limit the power of those non-democratic elements to exchange a Western-friendly dictatorship for an antagonistic dictatorship of Sharia. (To be clear, a government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, even if popularly elected would be no democracy. As Hamas’s election in the Gaza Strip clearly shows, a democracy is much more than simply voting.) While admittedly this path should have been taken years ago, it is not too late for the United States to show that it is willing to help the Egyptians achieve a system based on the noble principles which America represents.
The US need not come out for or against Mubarak. Nor should it back individuals or specific groups with the opposition. There does not need to be an Egyptian Nouri al-Maliki or Hamid Karzai; in fact it is probably better if such an individual does not exist. While Mohammad al-Baradei is weakly touted as the one to fill this role, the US would be wise not to cultivate the next leader of Egypt but to stand with the people and their desire for a new system. The focus should be on encouraging the construction of viable institutions that will lead to a stable democracy in whatever fashion the Egyptians choose to build such a system. The US's approach should not be about individuals or groups; we should not be picking winners or losers for the Egyptians, but about helping them convert the principles that we, and apparently they, value into living, breathing institutions.
Not only will this show the average Egyptian that the US does care about their plight, thus minimizing the rallying cry of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it will greatly contribute to the US’s security. While the transition may be scary, it is far better to have a democracy in Egypt than a dictatorship, which not only commits abuses but is prone to failure (as we are now seeing). The more the US fails to recognize that its security is better served by developing democracy, in a careful manner, the greater the likelihood is that it continues to bolster the very enemies which will one day seize power and stand in opposition to the West. Just as it is in America, power is vested in the people, whether they are temporarily stripped of it or not. By supporting their cause, we silence those who despise us, and achieve both the moral and the secure outcome.
Tranisitions to democracy always have risks and unknowns. It took the United States over 200 years to build its system and its work is not done. But these risks, in the long-run, are worth it. Where our democracy building has failed is in the top-down approach, rather than benevolent assistance at the grassroots in aiding the development of institutions. However, if we are honest with ourselves and the application of our principles, we need not fear a tradeoff between security and promotion of democracy. In fact they become intricately linked. Allowing Egypt to change its course, does not mean letting a revolution run rampant, but playing an active role in directing its flow. Damming up this energy, as was recently allowed to happen in Iran, will only hurt American interests in the end.
The arguments criss-cross the political landscape. For instance, the Washington Post’s liberal commentator, Richard Cohen, has told the Obama administration to “just shut up.” One of Israel’s leading papers, Ha’aretz, criticizes the president claiming “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt.” Alternatively, William Kristol, at the neoconservative Weekly Standard, urges Obama to do more to support the removal of the Egyptian leadership. Likewise, Francis Fukuyama argues that "liberals had better get organized" to build a new Egypt.
Understandably, the administration is cautious. The United States’ course of action could have severe implications for the fate of the region and American interests. However, a reluctance to place all bets on one side or the other is not the same as inaction. While in recent days the president has, after Mubarak effectively tendered his upcoming resignation (he will not run for reelection in September), come out in support of a peaceful transition, the administration has failed to develop a successful political stance that will allow the best possible result for Egypt and America’s interests. Instead, it largely remains on the sidelines, watching and waiting.
The tension between courses of action is clear. On the one hand, there is security in stability. Hosni Mubarak, for all his domestic flaws, is a known entity. He has been a reliable ally and supposedly kept the worst enemies – currently the Muslim Brotherhood – from dominating Egypt. (This is debatable as some argue that he has aided the Brotherhood’s cause in order to have a bogeyman that will maintain America’s support for his regime.) Since the most established political opposition consists of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the fear is that Mubarak’s fall will lead to an Islamist state, reminiscent of the Iranian regime which overthrew the Shah in 1979 and remains in power today. Proponents of supporting Mubarak fear the worst outcome – replacing a friendly, undemocratic dictator with an unfriendly, (nominally) democratic, Islamist state.
This stands in sharp contrast to the principle of democracy-promotion, which emphasizes the spread of liberal values that so many Americans hold dear. These arguments, which come both from the left and the neocon right, argue that establishing true democracy is, in addition to being morally right, necessary for US security. From this perspective, steps should be taken to facilitate and aid the pro-democracy forces, allowing the dictatorship to be replaced with a system that will not only be democratic, but remain friendly to the West.
The US is thus stuck in an uncomfortable position. If it backs Mubarak, it will be accused of abandoning its principles and solidify its label as an enemy of the Egyptian people. If the current regime – with or without Mubarak – maintains power, the US will “win” in the short-run, yet inevitably rack-up indubitable costs to be paid when the regime ultimately falters. On the other hand, if despite US support for the regime, the revolution wins the fight, the Muslim Brotherhood will gather enough fodder to portray the clash as the West versus Islam, all but solidifying their ascent.
Conversely, if the administration completely abandons the Egyptian leadership, throwing its weight behind the revolution, it runs the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. The revolution could turn in favor of the Brotherhood or take a more Western-oriented path to democracy. Furthermore, such vocalized support from America could have a wider effect of destabilizing the regimes across the Middle East. The unknowns are incalculable and potential deadly.
So what is the administration to do? Certainly, it cannot, as Cohen argues, just sit on the sidelines and watch. Instead, it must do what it can to coax the best possible outcome, namely a liberal democracy, while minimizing the likelihood of the worst outcome, an Islamist state run by the Muslim Brotherhood. For better or worse, the middle outcome – a Western allied dictatorship – is no longer an option. Even if the current regime hangs on through this upheaval, it will only be a matter of time before the people rise again.
Practically, the administration needs to express the need for institutionalized democracy. The US (and Europe) must lend support to anyone within Egypt who desires to build democratic institutions. Institutions that provide checks and balances and diffusion of power must be established. This will give structure to an emerging democracy, put the US on the side of the people (as it should be), and limit the power of those non-democratic elements to exchange a Western-friendly dictatorship for an antagonistic dictatorship of Sharia. (To be clear, a government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, even if popularly elected would be no democracy. As Hamas’s election in the Gaza Strip clearly shows, a democracy is much more than simply voting.) While admittedly this path should have been taken years ago, it is not too late for the United States to show that it is willing to help the Egyptians achieve a system based on the noble principles which America represents.
The US need not come out for or against Mubarak. Nor should it back individuals or specific groups with the opposition. There does not need to be an Egyptian Nouri al-Maliki or Hamid Karzai; in fact it is probably better if such an individual does not exist. While Mohammad al-Baradei is weakly touted as the one to fill this role, the US would be wise not to cultivate the next leader of Egypt but to stand with the people and their desire for a new system. The focus should be on encouraging the construction of viable institutions that will lead to a stable democracy in whatever fashion the Egyptians choose to build such a system. The US's approach should not be about individuals or groups; we should not be picking winners or losers for the Egyptians, but about helping them convert the principles that we, and apparently they, value into living, breathing institutions.
Not only will this show the average Egyptian that the US does care about their plight, thus minimizing the rallying cry of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it will greatly contribute to the US’s security. While the transition may be scary, it is far better to have a democracy in Egypt than a dictatorship, which not only commits abuses but is prone to failure (as we are now seeing). The more the US fails to recognize that its security is better served by developing democracy, in a careful manner, the greater the likelihood is that it continues to bolster the very enemies which will one day seize power and stand in opposition to the West. Just as it is in America, power is vested in the people, whether they are temporarily stripped of it or not. By supporting their cause, we silence those who despise us, and achieve both the moral and the secure outcome.
Tranisitions to democracy always have risks and unknowns. It took the United States over 200 years to build its system and its work is not done. But these risks, in the long-run, are worth it. Where our democracy building has failed is in the top-down approach, rather than benevolent assistance at the grassroots in aiding the development of institutions. However, if we are honest with ourselves and the application of our principles, we need not fear a tradeoff between security and promotion of democracy. In fact they become intricately linked. Allowing Egypt to change its course, does not mean letting a revolution run rampant, but playing an active role in directing its flow. Damming up this energy, as was recently allowed to happen in Iran, will only hurt American interests in the end.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Power of Lobbies
It is a common political pastime to disparage so-called “special interests.” Their association with the Big “You Fill in the Blanks” [Business, Insurance, Auto, Pharma, etc.] and their alleged corrupting influences on politics has made them an unremitting target of popular umbrage. Following the Citizens United decision, President Obama distinctively claimed that it was “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” However, a year after this infamous and contentious Supreme Court ruling, there has yet to be considerable, if any, focus on a key aspect of the special interest world.
The overlooked reality is that no lobby or special interest has any power save what is given to it by the government. Merriam-Webster defines a special interest as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Special interests gain clout not through their own power over a specific industry or market, but by influencing legislators or regulators to grant them undue sway. The real power lays with the government officials, who possess the ultimate command of coercion.
Surprisingly, this fact is frequently disregarded when populists want to attack special interests. However, if one takes a look at the industries where powerful lobbies exist there is an eerie correlation with government involvement. Seemingly, special interests would lose much of their influence if the government ceased arbitrarily meddling in private markets.
To be clear, this is not a claim that the problem of every special interest is rooted in government. For instance, simple vote- or seat-buying [Mr. Blagojevich] is often initiated by special interests and is unquestionably and inarguably wrong. There is little controversy that such behavior is unconscionable and must be eradicated. This is, of course, not a flaw in government as an institution but in government officials as corrupt individuals.
Nor is it a claim that government can have no constructive role in the private sector. Certain regulations and oversight are, at times, necessary. For instance, when non-legislatively caused monopolies exist and they are able, through illegal or unjust means, to deter competition (or in other words, cause severe distortions of the market) the government may have a limited role to play in deconstructing the firm’s market power.
Nevertheless, far too many of the problems (and there are many problems) in the private sector are the result of a conferral of power from the government to an undeserving group or individual. Critics miss the point when attacking lobbies, who like any other group or individual, are solely aiming to maximize their self-interest. Instead, the vitriol should be directed towards the regulators and politicians who continue to write laws and regulations that arbitrarily interfere in a world where the government does not belong. [To parallel, who is at fault when a demanding child is given one-too-many sweets– the relenting parent (who ultimately has the power) or the whining kid?]
Our government and our society need to change their outlook in this regard. If industries know that government will stand at arm’s length from the daily hubbub of a market and instead, solely create guiding rules (I.e. enforcement of contracts, prevent of abuse or fraud, etc.), the power of special interests will be severely limited if not eradicated. However, this is unfortunately not the case. Far too often, a tweak in a law can make or break a company’s bottom line. Right or wrong, this necessitates a strong response from an industry.
Republicans have a grand opportunity (and some say a mandate) to make this cultural shift. While so-far largely symbolic, the “repeal and replace” campaign against Obamacare is a prime testing ground. Regardless of whether the “replace” makes it anywhere in the next two years, it should be fundamentally based on the principle of clear, concise rules, that strengthen market forces and avoid noisome government meddling. Avoiding unwarranted special interest power is as simple as prohibiting unjustifiable government forays into the private sector.
The overlooked reality is that no lobby or special interest has any power save what is given to it by the government. Merriam-Webster defines a special interest as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Special interests gain clout not through their own power over a specific industry or market, but by influencing legislators or regulators to grant them undue sway. The real power lays with the government officials, who possess the ultimate command of coercion.
Surprisingly, this fact is frequently disregarded when populists want to attack special interests. However, if one takes a look at the industries where powerful lobbies exist there is an eerie correlation with government involvement. Seemingly, special interests would lose much of their influence if the government ceased arbitrarily meddling in private markets.
To be clear, this is not a claim that the problem of every special interest is rooted in government. For instance, simple vote- or seat-buying [Mr. Blagojevich] is often initiated by special interests and is unquestionably and inarguably wrong. There is little controversy that such behavior is unconscionable and must be eradicated. This is, of course, not a flaw in government as an institution but in government officials as corrupt individuals.
Nor is it a claim that government can have no constructive role in the private sector. Certain regulations and oversight are, at times, necessary. For instance, when non-legislatively caused monopolies exist and they are able, through illegal or unjust means, to deter competition (or in other words, cause severe distortions of the market) the government may have a limited role to play in deconstructing the firm’s market power.
Nevertheless, far too many of the problems (and there are many problems) in the private sector are the result of a conferral of power from the government to an undeserving group or individual. Critics miss the point when attacking lobbies, who like any other group or individual, are solely aiming to maximize their self-interest. Instead, the vitriol should be directed towards the regulators and politicians who continue to write laws and regulations that arbitrarily interfere in a world where the government does not belong. [To parallel, who is at fault when a demanding child is given one-too-many sweets– the relenting parent (who ultimately has the power) or the whining kid?]
Our government and our society need to change their outlook in this regard. If industries know that government will stand at arm’s length from the daily hubbub of a market and instead, solely create guiding rules (I.e. enforcement of contracts, prevent of abuse or fraud, etc.), the power of special interests will be severely limited if not eradicated. However, this is unfortunately not the case. Far too often, a tweak in a law can make or break a company’s bottom line. Right or wrong, this necessitates a strong response from an industry.
Republicans have a grand opportunity (and some say a mandate) to make this cultural shift. While so-far largely symbolic, the “repeal and replace” campaign against Obamacare is a prime testing ground. Regardless of whether the “replace” makes it anywhere in the next two years, it should be fundamentally based on the principle of clear, concise rules, that strengthen market forces and avoid noisome government meddling. Avoiding unwarranted special interest power is as simple as prohibiting unjustifiable government forays into the private sector.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Tequila for the GOP
The newest thing to hit the newspapers is the Tequila Party. No, it’s not some college drinking game, but an incipient grassroots political movement. Modeled after the Tea Party (in structure, not agenda), it aims to mobilize Hispanic voters to push for immigration reform.
Its founders threaten to break the Hispanic vote off from the Democrats, where it has long served as a bastion of support. The Tequila big-Shots argue that the Democrats have taken the Hispanic vote for granted and have thus done little to meet their needs. This undoubtedly true, but unsurprisingly the heavy-hitting and xenophobic fringe of the GOP has prevented the Republican Party from peeling off the Hispanic vote. Until maybe now. The Tequila Party is yet another sign of the need for realignment in the political landscape. The GOP should do everything it can to promote the free movement of the Hispanic vote.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Class Warfare and the Social Yard-Stick
Class warfare is becoming a full-blown storm on Capitol Hill. It is not really anything new – a time-tested strategy frequently relied upon by the left, but also used by the right. President Obama’s latest deployment was during his announcement of the bipartisan tax deal with Republicans.
Presumably, such a cross-aisle deal is a time to rejoice at actually finding middle ground in the exceedingly divisive Congress. Instead, the “class card” was thrown about. Obama likened the deal to one made with hostage-takers [Can a deal really be enforceable if made under duress?!]. He stated, “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”
Now, the merits of Republican tactics aside, the interesting issue is the continued desire of American politicians, particularly on the left, to sow the seeds of class warfare. The storyline is familiar – greedy fat cat CEOs, those over $250k not “paying their fair share,” and “tax-cuts for the rich.” Republicans feed right into this game, defending the economics of high salaries and bonuses (needed to incentivize performance), arguing for low tax rates (high rates stifle economic growth), claiming that some “rich” just really are not all that rich, and pointing to all the good that some wealthy do for the community.
All of this is probably true and these arguments need to be made. However, they miss the fundamental point and allow the political game to be dictated on far-left terms. The left loves class warfare. It plays into a multitude of arguments defending wealth redistribution and increased government involvement in the lives of private citizens. But it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what income’s purpose is.
The left looks at income as a sort of social yard-stick, a tool to measure one’s value to society. By this logic the more one makes, the more good they should bring. However the argument goes, there is quite a bit of injustice in the system! Greedy CEOs do not help the country and yet they get rich, while struggling laborers barely make ends meet! The natural solution? Take from those who undeservingly make a lot of money and give to those who deserve it, but do not get it.
Implicit in this argument are at least two assumptions. The first is the particular standard regarding who deserves what. The left has come up with some arbitrary criteria of what is “deserving” and thus how wealth needs to be redistributed. Enter the Republicans – who try to challenge the left’s definition of “deserving.” This is where the class warfare is generally fought. Republicans, for instance, argue that CEOs, for better or worse, do deserve at least some of their recompense.
However, by playing the game of “what social value do [insert: CEOs, top 5% of income earners, those who make over $250k, etc] have,” Republicans are tacitly acknowledging the deeper assumption in this leftist [daresay socialist] argument – that there is even a relationship between social value and income.
The fact of the matter is that income is a measure of one’s services in a given line of work. It is the market’s determination of what value an individual provides for a certain occupation. Income, like the price of nearly every other good, is motivated by a host of factors, including, of course, supply and demand.
However, it is not – and should never be – a measure of one’s value to society. This is too arbitrary of a claim. Society – government in particular – has no right to pass judgment on an individual’s value or their associated income. [Beyond the issue of right – government simply has no, non-arbitrary means to determine value outside of the market-mechanism.] The rich are no more or less deserving of their wealth, than the poor are of their dearth. “Deserving” just simply is not a concept that the government is fit to act upon.
It is time to cut the class warfare. It is far too divisive and harmful for our country. Not only does it lead to strife between individuals and groups, but it creates an environment where the government feels even more compelled to meddle in the private affairs of citizens. One may not like that someone else makes more than him, but that never justifies arbitrarily taking it from him. Why should it be any different for the government?
Presumably, such a cross-aisle deal is a time to rejoice at actually finding middle ground in the exceedingly divisive Congress. Instead, the “class card” was thrown about. Obama likened the deal to one made with hostage-takers [Can a deal really be enforceable if made under duress?!]. He stated, “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed.”
Now, the merits of Republican tactics aside, the interesting issue is the continued desire of American politicians, particularly on the left, to sow the seeds of class warfare. The storyline is familiar – greedy fat cat CEOs, those over $250k not “paying their fair share,” and “tax-cuts for the rich.” Republicans feed right into this game, defending the economics of high salaries and bonuses (needed to incentivize performance), arguing for low tax rates (high rates stifle economic growth), claiming that some “rich” just really are not all that rich, and pointing to all the good that some wealthy do for the community.
All of this is probably true and these arguments need to be made. However, they miss the fundamental point and allow the political game to be dictated on far-left terms. The left loves class warfare. It plays into a multitude of arguments defending wealth redistribution and increased government involvement in the lives of private citizens. But it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what income’s purpose is.
The left looks at income as a sort of social yard-stick, a tool to measure one’s value to society. By this logic the more one makes, the more good they should bring. However the argument goes, there is quite a bit of injustice in the system! Greedy CEOs do not help the country and yet they get rich, while struggling laborers barely make ends meet! The natural solution? Take from those who undeservingly make a lot of money and give to those who deserve it, but do not get it.
Implicit in this argument are at least two assumptions. The first is the particular standard regarding who deserves what. The left has come up with some arbitrary criteria of what is “deserving” and thus how wealth needs to be redistributed. Enter the Republicans – who try to challenge the left’s definition of “deserving.” This is where the class warfare is generally fought. Republicans, for instance, argue that CEOs, for better or worse, do deserve at least some of their recompense.
However, by playing the game of “what social value do [insert: CEOs, top 5% of income earners, those who make over $250k, etc] have,” Republicans are tacitly acknowledging the deeper assumption in this leftist [daresay socialist] argument – that there is even a relationship between social value and income.
The fact of the matter is that income is a measure of one’s services in a given line of work. It is the market’s determination of what value an individual provides for a certain occupation. Income, like the price of nearly every other good, is motivated by a host of factors, including, of course, supply and demand.
However, it is not – and should never be – a measure of one’s value to society. This is too arbitrary of a claim. Society – government in particular – has no right to pass judgment on an individual’s value or their associated income. [Beyond the issue of right – government simply has no, non-arbitrary means to determine value outside of the market-mechanism.] The rich are no more or less deserving of their wealth, than the poor are of their dearth. “Deserving” just simply is not a concept that the government is fit to act upon.
It is time to cut the class warfare. It is far too divisive and harmful for our country. Not only does it lead to strife between individuals and groups, but it creates an environment where the government feels even more compelled to meddle in the private affairs of citizens. One may not like that someone else makes more than him, but that never justifies arbitrarily taking it from him. Why should it be any different for the government?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
WikiLeaks and a Middle East Peace?
Could the WikiLeaks disclosures, which are causing all sorts of negative fallout for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, actually lead to some foreign policy successes? Regarding most of the leaks the upshot will probably run the gamut from benign, to embarrassing, to trivially detrimental; however, there is one area where there may be a potential, albeit slight, for a constructive outcome.
Two facts, which were previously widely assumed, have now been confirmed. The first is the growing fear in the Arab world about Iran’s expanding power and nuclear ambitions. The second is Israel’s clandestine diplomacy with these same Arab powers.
Regarding the former, leaked documents show a number of Arab states’ unease with Iran’s nuclear program. These documents, as reported in the Financial Times, call for the US to stop Iran’s ambitions, including with direct attacks. This is relatively unsurprising as balancing between the big Arab states and Iran is a constant feature of the region. No Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other two regional heavyweights, want to see a nuclear Iran.
Likewise, the disclosure of Israel’s communications with some of these states is unsurprising. Israel does not have official diplomatic channels with most Arab nations; however, despite public rhetoric they do often have common concerns.
While none of this is surprising to the casual follower of the region, most know that these Arab leaders say one thing in public while another thing behind closed doors. Much of this, of course, is due to the strong opinions of the Arab street and Muslim fundamentalists. However, now the metaphorical cat is out of the bag.
What is done with this “cat” though could have interesting consequences for the region. Most likely the Arab states will attempt to distance themselves from these revelations, brushing them off as distortions or simply ignoring the leaks. However, if the Arab leadership address these facts head-on and take ownership, it could profoundly alter the political map.
As both sets of disclosures prove, Israel and the Arab states are, at least in some issues, on the same side. In particular, Iran represents a growing threat to stability in the region and, at a minimum in Israel’s case, an existential threat. Currently, however, Arab nations and Israel are precluded from working together largely by the Arab street’s political pressure over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamic fundamentalism’s abhorrence of the Jewish state.
While admittedly these place enormous constraints on the Arab leadership, who might very well lose their power if they worked openly with Israel, the animosity towards Israel is increasingly a strategic anchor. The Jewish state is no longer the (perceived) greatest threat to the Arab world, just as the Palestinian problem is no longer the most significant issue for Israel.
This opens the door for expanded coordination between the Arab world and Israel and, daresay, a potential path to peace. Rather than spurning these disclosures, Arab leaders should attempt to use these revelations of their true security concerns to begin a (yes, slight) redirection of the Arab street’s focus. While a rush to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel is probably premature, the Arab leaders can use the WikiLeaks disclosures as a first hole in the dike which has separated Israel and the Arabs for some 60 years.
Rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states is essential for both regional and individual state security. While domestic conditions certainly make this difficult, WikiLeaks may have helped get the ball rolling. It is certainly too early to tell where this will lead, but ironically someday Julian Assange might be called a hero (okay I doubt that) for lighting the spark that checked Iran’s nuclear rise and precipitating peace between Israel and the Arabs.
Two facts, which were previously widely assumed, have now been confirmed. The first is the growing fear in the Arab world about Iran’s expanding power and nuclear ambitions. The second is Israel’s clandestine diplomacy with these same Arab powers.
Regarding the former, leaked documents show a number of Arab states’ unease with Iran’s nuclear program. These documents, as reported in the Financial Times, call for the US to stop Iran’s ambitions, including with direct attacks. This is relatively unsurprising as balancing between the big Arab states and Iran is a constant feature of the region. No Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other two regional heavyweights, want to see a nuclear Iran.
Likewise, the disclosure of Israel’s communications with some of these states is unsurprising. Israel does not have official diplomatic channels with most Arab nations; however, despite public rhetoric they do often have common concerns.
While none of this is surprising to the casual follower of the region, most know that these Arab leaders say one thing in public while another thing behind closed doors. Much of this, of course, is due to the strong opinions of the Arab street and Muslim fundamentalists. However, now the metaphorical cat is out of the bag.
What is done with this “cat” though could have interesting consequences for the region. Most likely the Arab states will attempt to distance themselves from these revelations, brushing them off as distortions or simply ignoring the leaks. However, if the Arab leadership address these facts head-on and take ownership, it could profoundly alter the political map.
As both sets of disclosures prove, Israel and the Arab states are, at least in some issues, on the same side. In particular, Iran represents a growing threat to stability in the region and, at a minimum in Israel’s case, an existential threat. Currently, however, Arab nations and Israel are precluded from working together largely by the Arab street’s political pressure over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamic fundamentalism’s abhorrence of the Jewish state.
While admittedly these place enormous constraints on the Arab leadership, who might very well lose their power if they worked openly with Israel, the animosity towards Israel is increasingly a strategic anchor. The Jewish state is no longer the (perceived) greatest threat to the Arab world, just as the Palestinian problem is no longer the most significant issue for Israel.
This opens the door for expanded coordination between the Arab world and Israel and, daresay, a potential path to peace. Rather than spurning these disclosures, Arab leaders should attempt to use these revelations of their true security concerns to begin a (yes, slight) redirection of the Arab street’s focus. While a rush to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel is probably premature, the Arab leaders can use the WikiLeaks disclosures as a first hole in the dike which has separated Israel and the Arabs for some 60 years.
Rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states is essential for both regional and individual state security. While domestic conditions certainly make this difficult, WikiLeaks may have helped get the ball rolling. It is certainly too early to tell where this will lead, but ironically someday Julian Assange might be called a hero (okay I doubt that) for lighting the spark that checked Iran’s nuclear rise and precipitating peace between Israel and the Arabs.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Juan and Done: Political Correctness Gone Too Far
Juan Williams’s recent termination from NPR provides yet another stark example of a hostile and intolerant political correctness. The left-of center NPR, after seemingly receiving pressure from a number of sources, fired Williams after he made comments regarding his personal reaction to certain Muslims on Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor.
Williams, who is also an analyst at Fox News, was challenging O’Reilly on associating terrorists with Muslims, stated, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Putting aside the specific discussion of Islam and terrorism, there is a profound irony that Williams was terminated in the name of political correctness, precisely for an astute criticism of the horrid practice. In his discussion with O’Reilly, the first point that Williams made was that “political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”
This philosophy is unerringly correct. Faced by pressures from left-wing relativists and, in this instance, Muslim interest groups, America has been confined to speak only in narrow platitudes and “tolerant” talking-points. Deviations, whether right or wrong, are inexcusable. But, as Williams so eloquently concluded, this creates reality-distorting paralyses, where real issues cannot be discussed in any serious fashion. This banality not only handicaps America, but it is representative of a growing illiberal intolerance.
The illiberality of this type of political correctness is relatively clear. While NPR is correct to argue that “[Juan] does not have a First Amendment right to be paid by NPR for saying whatever he wants,” this fact ignores the underlying need for free speech and free press. NPR does not have any obligation to keep Williams on, but if they are committed to being a relevant source for honest news, they are foolish to silence legitimate, mainstream discussions for fear of offending those who would rather not talk about difficult issues.
This tacit illiberality is precisely why political correctness is such a handicap. Real dialogue is indispensable to the functioning of any democracy and essential for the successful handling of innumerable issues. However, it cannot progress when stifled by the heavy hand of political correctness. Williams’s fear, again regardless of whether right or wrong, is one that is shared by millions of Americans. And while, for the sake of the argument we will postpone the discussion of whether this fear is justified, there clearly are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Precisely because it is real for some many Americans, open discourse is necessary to address this trepidation – whether to assuage misguided fears or correct the circumstances that give rise to prudent concerns.
Williams’s honesty was exemplary of this type of dialogue. He was expressing a fact, not an opinion about what he felt (not a fact about Muslims being or not being a security threat). He was being honest and open. Furthermore, far from providing an opinion that such a sentiment was right, Williams was essentially offering a sort of confessional. He put forward, despite his belief that Muslims should not be categorically linked with terrorism, that he still felt something visceral.
More open dialogue of this sort is needed. By attempting to stifle Williams, NPR has contributed to a declining failure of American leaders and journalism in providing open forums for discussion about meaningful, but sensitive, topics. America’s progress will come to a crashing halt if prohibitions are continuously placed on this sort of dialogue.
Williams, who is also an analyst at Fox News, was challenging O’Reilly on associating terrorists with Muslims, stated, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Putting aside the specific discussion of Islam and terrorism, there is a profound irony that Williams was terminated in the name of political correctness, precisely for an astute criticism of the horrid practice. In his discussion with O’Reilly, the first point that Williams made was that “political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”
This philosophy is unerringly correct. Faced by pressures from left-wing relativists and, in this instance, Muslim interest groups, America has been confined to speak only in narrow platitudes and “tolerant” talking-points. Deviations, whether right or wrong, are inexcusable. But, as Williams so eloquently concluded, this creates reality-distorting paralyses, where real issues cannot be discussed in any serious fashion. This banality not only handicaps America, but it is representative of a growing illiberal intolerance.
The illiberality of this type of political correctness is relatively clear. While NPR is correct to argue that “[Juan] does not have a First Amendment right to be paid by NPR for saying whatever he wants,” this fact ignores the underlying need for free speech and free press. NPR does not have any obligation to keep Williams on, but if they are committed to being a relevant source for honest news, they are foolish to silence legitimate, mainstream discussions for fear of offending those who would rather not talk about difficult issues.
This tacit illiberality is precisely why political correctness is such a handicap. Real dialogue is indispensable to the functioning of any democracy and essential for the successful handling of innumerable issues. However, it cannot progress when stifled by the heavy hand of political correctness. Williams’s fear, again regardless of whether right or wrong, is one that is shared by millions of Americans. And while, for the sake of the argument we will postpone the discussion of whether this fear is justified, there clearly are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Precisely because it is real for some many Americans, open discourse is necessary to address this trepidation – whether to assuage misguided fears or correct the circumstances that give rise to prudent concerns.
Williams’s honesty was exemplary of this type of dialogue. He was expressing a fact, not an opinion about what he felt (not a fact about Muslims being or not being a security threat). He was being honest and open. Furthermore, far from providing an opinion that such a sentiment was right, Williams was essentially offering a sort of confessional. He put forward, despite his belief that Muslims should not be categorically linked with terrorism, that he still felt something visceral.
More open dialogue of this sort is needed. By attempting to stifle Williams, NPR has contributed to a declining failure of American leaders and journalism in providing open forums for discussion about meaningful, but sensitive, topics. America’s progress will come to a crashing halt if prohibitions are continuously placed on this sort of dialogue.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
On the Tea Party and Academia
In today's Wall Street Journal, the Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz wrote a profound piece regarding the prominent misunderstanding of the Tea Party. While there are many problems with the Tea Party, the fundamentals of the movement are sound. One of the issues, as Berkowitz alludes to, is that "the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks and creeps. And some of its favored candidates and loudest voices have made embarrassing statements and embraced reckless policies." These individuals have become an easy target for ridicule and disregard from the Left and have prevented rational conservatives from fully endorsing the movement.
This is a shame because the principles of the Tea Party are extremely valid and worthwhile. The concepts of limited government and individual liberty are founding tenets of the American system which have, unfortunately, been slowly eroded over the years. The recognition of this problem and the desire to prevent the future degradation of this arrangement are these most valuable parts of the movement.
The genesis of this erosion is, however, the real issue to which Berkowitz points. He correctly elucidates the failure of academia to instruct its students in the basic concepts of the American system. He writes:
This is the root cause not only of America's wayward drift but the intense emotionalism of the Tea Party. While many Tea Partiers viscerally understand the deterioration of the country, the deleterious anger and emotion have crowded out the focus on principles that is sorely needed. Blame for this failure does not solely rest on the shoulders of the Tea Party, but rather on the demagogues who, in their quest for political power, drown out the intellectual voices of reason with the war drums of acrimony. There are few leaders who have the desire or ability to push the Tea Party into a rational and productive direction.
What America and the Tea Party need are individuals who can guide the warranted, but unproductive, ire into constructive channels. If academia continues to propagate failed leaders, other avenues should be taken to generate intellectuals schooled in the full history of America. What is important, though, is not the means of reviving these ideas, but the end of having political and thought leaders who can cogently adduce the principles necessary to keep America on the right path. The Tea Party's real worth will be shown if it can generate this revival.
This is a shame because the principles of the Tea Party are extremely valid and worthwhile. The concepts of limited government and individual liberty are founding tenets of the American system which have, unfortunately, been slowly eroded over the years. The recognition of this problem and the desire to prevent the future degradation of this arrangement are these most valuable parts of the movement.
The genesis of this erosion is, however, the real issue to which Berkowitz points. He correctly elucidates the failure of academia to instruct its students in the basic concepts of the American system. He writes:
For the better part of two generations, the best political science departments have concentrated on equipping students with skills for performing empirical research and teaching mathematical models that purport to describe political affairs. Meanwhile, leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history.
Neither professors of political science nor of history have made a priority of instructing students in the founding principles of American constitutional government. Nor have they taught about the contest between the progressive vision and the conservative vision that has characterized American politics since Woodrow Wilson (then a political scientist at Princeton) helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the Constitution had become obsolete and hindered democratic reform.
Then there are the proliferating classes in practical ethics and moral reasoning. These expose students to hypothetical conundrums involving individuals in surreal circumstances suddenly facing life and death decisions, or present contentious public policy questions and explore the range of respectable progressive opinions for resolving them. Such exercises may sharpen students' ability to argue. They do little to teach about self-government.Unfortunately, Berkowitz's analysis is all too correct. The fundamental principles and ideals of political science are essentially ignored throughout the country's educational system. Students spend more time analyzing revisionist history through modern progressive lenses than scrutinizing the development and interactions of foundational theories that have made America what it is today.
This is the root cause not only of America's wayward drift but the intense emotionalism of the Tea Party. While many Tea Partiers viscerally understand the deterioration of the country, the deleterious anger and emotion have crowded out the focus on principles that is sorely needed. Blame for this failure does not solely rest on the shoulders of the Tea Party, but rather on the demagogues who, in their quest for political power, drown out the intellectual voices of reason with the war drums of acrimony. There are few leaders who have the desire or ability to push the Tea Party into a rational and productive direction.
What America and the Tea Party need are individuals who can guide the warranted, but unproductive, ire into constructive channels. If academia continues to propagate failed leaders, other avenues should be taken to generate intellectuals schooled in the full history of America. What is important, though, is not the means of reviving these ideas, but the end of having political and thought leaders who can cogently adduce the principles necessary to keep America on the right path. The Tea Party's real worth will be shown if it can generate this revival.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Obama the Desperate
The growing fear in the White House is palpable. As Election Day and the looming Democratic defeat inch closer, the administration’s political tactics smack of a growing desperation to derail the Republicans at any cost. The most recent and unbecoming attacks have been unleashed by Obama upon the US Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately, these misguided strategies not only put on raw display the administration’s weaknesses and failures, but will drive an already skeptical America further from the Democrats.
The latest issue began after a liberal think tank released an unsubstantiated report alleging that the US Chamber of Commerce has used foreign funds for political advertisements. President Obama quickly jumped on the bandwagon, seemingly hoping to link these supposed shady foreign dealings with Republican candidates who are often supported by the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce was quick to respond; denying any involvement in what is an illegal practice and emphasizing that there is no reason, outside of slanderous politics, for anyone to raise the generally institution’s funding practices. In a letter, Chamber President Tom Donohue wrote:
Tactics to distract voters are often used by both political parties. When the issues do not look favorable for the party in power, it can be politically expedient to draw voters’ attentions elsewhere. However, in general, there should be at least a kernel of truth in the diversionary issue. In this instance, this appears to be lacking. By randomly targeting an organization, based on nothing but partisan differences, the administration is acting childish. If Democrats and Republicans were to consistently use this strategy, accusing every union, business group, lobby, or other partisan organization of unproven crimes, it would clog public discourse with frivolous babble. It is one thing to raise issues – say Christine O’Donnell’s witchiness – that, even if inane, are at least based in facts; it is quite another to harass organizations simply to divert voter attention.
This makes it all the more embarrassing for the president to mire himself in such puerile politicking. Such mudslinging should be left to loosely associated lackeys and radio talk show hosts, not the president himself. The fact that Obama feels the need to partake in this faux battle reveals a deep fear of November 2nd and a determination to avoid the anticipated outcome by any means. It puts on clear display the reality that the administration does not have the self-confidence to support fellow Democrats with its record or its policy proposals. It shows Obama understands that his policies have failed America. After all, if he believed America has been happy with his administration he would campaign on his successes, not pie-in-the-sky accusations.
However, it is unlikely that smear tactics will sway an unhappy electorate. America who, driven by a poor economy, distaste with the administration’s hubris, and general opprobrium with the Democrats’ inability to successfully run the country, will most certainly see through the ploy to distract voters. But more significantly, Americans will be angered by the performance. Generally speaking, they do not want their president to stoop to this level. The office should be above this type of low-brow partisan behavior and by dragging it in the mud Obama will hurt his image.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama’s strategy will surely backfire and reinforce his detached image. It will further convince America that the administration is devoid of practical and acceptable ideas and it will solidify the past two years as a time of wasteful government growth and backward policies. Elections should be about ideas and policies, not mudslinging. And while both parties often fail at this, Obama’s current inability to focus on real issues and a growing strategy of smearing the Republicans only signifies that he and his party are in big trouble.
The latest issue began after a liberal think tank released an unsubstantiated report alleging that the US Chamber of Commerce has used foreign funds for political advertisements. President Obama quickly jumped on the bandwagon, seemingly hoping to link these supposed shady foreign dealings with Republican candidates who are often supported by the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce was quick to respond; denying any involvement in what is an illegal practice and emphasizing that there is no reason, outside of slanderous politics, for anyone to raise the generally institution’s funding practices. In a letter, Chamber President Tom Donohue wrote:
Let me be clear. The Chamber does not use any foreign money to fund voter education activities—period. We have strict financial controls in place to ensure this.... Under our accounting system, these revenues are never used to support any political activities. We are in full compliance with all laws and regulations.
Given these facts, the administration and Congressional leaders who attacked the Chamber have been challenged by journalists to produce any evidence to the contrary. They came up empty and, turning the American principles of fairness and justice upside down, our accusers have actually suggested that the Chamber should prove that it has not done anything wrong.However, despite lack of any evidence and criticism by much of the press, the Democrats have been unwilling to back down. During recent questioning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to drop the ludicrous attack. He stated, “The president will continue to make the case that we don't know where this money comes from and entities like the Chamber have said they get money from overseas.”
Tactics to distract voters are often used by both political parties. When the issues do not look favorable for the party in power, it can be politically expedient to draw voters’ attentions elsewhere. However, in general, there should be at least a kernel of truth in the diversionary issue. In this instance, this appears to be lacking. By randomly targeting an organization, based on nothing but partisan differences, the administration is acting childish. If Democrats and Republicans were to consistently use this strategy, accusing every union, business group, lobby, or other partisan organization of unproven crimes, it would clog public discourse with frivolous babble. It is one thing to raise issues – say Christine O’Donnell’s witchiness – that, even if inane, are at least based in facts; it is quite another to harass organizations simply to divert voter attention.
This makes it all the more embarrassing for the president to mire himself in such puerile politicking. Such mudslinging should be left to loosely associated lackeys and radio talk show hosts, not the president himself. The fact that Obama feels the need to partake in this faux battle reveals a deep fear of November 2nd and a determination to avoid the anticipated outcome by any means. It puts on clear display the reality that the administration does not have the self-confidence to support fellow Democrats with its record or its policy proposals. It shows Obama understands that his policies have failed America. After all, if he believed America has been happy with his administration he would campaign on his successes, not pie-in-the-sky accusations.
However, it is unlikely that smear tactics will sway an unhappy electorate. America who, driven by a poor economy, distaste with the administration’s hubris, and general opprobrium with the Democrats’ inability to successfully run the country, will most certainly see through the ploy to distract voters. But more significantly, Americans will be angered by the performance. Generally speaking, they do not want their president to stoop to this level. The office should be above this type of low-brow partisan behavior and by dragging it in the mud Obama will hurt his image.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama’s strategy will surely backfire and reinforce his detached image. It will further convince America that the administration is devoid of practical and acceptable ideas and it will solidify the past two years as a time of wasteful government growth and backward policies. Elections should be about ideas and policies, not mudslinging. And while both parties often fail at this, Obama’s current inability to focus on real issues and a growing strategy of smearing the Republicans only signifies that he and his party are in big trouble.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A Union of Selfishness
The teachers’ unions are once again on the defensive, following the recent release of the much lauded movie, “Waiting for ‘Superman.’” The film, made by the same people that created “An Inconvenient Truth,” has fomented a surge of discussion on the woes of the American education system and, in particular, the dastardly effects of teachers’ unions.
The documentary highlights Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school system, as a paragon of what is right in education reform. Rhee, who recently sat down with The Washington Post for an interview, underscores human capital as the number one issue facing the system. In particular, she emphasizes teacher evaluations, pay-for-performance metrics, and tools to attract competent principals as key factors in improving underperforming schools.
The issue is systematic of the market distorting effects that unions – or any consolidated power – have in industry. They often are founded with the notion of protecting a specific marginalized group, but quickly devolve into powerful and obstinate special interests that rarely help those they purportedly represent and always disrupt the industry in which they operate. Unions played a significant role in destroying the Detroit auto industry and have continued to drag America’s education system through the mud.
The problem is that the teachers’ unions not only prevent the best teachers from being favorably compensated and encouraged to excel, but also protect those “teachers” who are utterly useless. The infamous “rubber rooms,” which have been eliminated in New York City largely in name only, are a prime example of the harmful effects of these unions. Likewise, unions are often opposed to such logical and widely accepted business models such as merit-based pay. As The Economist points out, the DC teachers’ union turned down an offer from Rhee to double teachers’ salaries if tenure was removed and merit-based pay instituted. How such a refusal by the union helps the teachers – particularly the good ones – is questionable, but the harm done to students is palpable. A mock discussion, articulated by Christie, between a child and a parent sums up the foolishness of the unions,
The documentary highlights Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school system, as a paragon of what is right in education reform. Rhee, who recently sat down with The Washington Post for an interview, underscores human capital as the number one issue facing the system. In particular, she emphasizes teacher evaluations, pay-for-performance metrics, and tools to attract competent principals as key factors in improving underperforming schools.Rhee could not be more correct in focusing on what are essentially competitive, free-market solutions to education’s woes. Unfortunately, as America is starting to realize, the teachers’ unions are standing in the way of the reform needed to help the country’s children. This battle has been all too clearly demonstrated in New Jersey, where the endearing Republican Governor, Chris Christie, has taken on the egocentric teachers’ union, heaping much deserved shame upon them for their inordinate selfishness. In a rousing speech (see video below), Christie bluntly countered the all-too-common argument that the unions add any value to society. The interest of the unions is not that of the teachers, who as he admits are mostly well intentioned, and certainly not that of the students, but solely of the union as a vested interest. Christie has continued his campaign against the obdurate unions in a recent political speech in Iowa, where he mocked the unions for their power hungry nature.
The issue is systematic of the market distorting effects that unions – or any consolidated power – have in industry. They often are founded with the notion of protecting a specific marginalized group, but quickly devolve into powerful and obstinate special interests that rarely help those they purportedly represent and always disrupt the industry in which they operate. Unions played a significant role in destroying the Detroit auto industry and have continued to drag America’s education system through the mud.
The problem is that the teachers’ unions not only prevent the best teachers from being favorably compensated and encouraged to excel, but also protect those “teachers” who are utterly useless. The infamous “rubber rooms,” which have been eliminated in New York City largely in name only, are a prime example of the harmful effects of these unions. Likewise, unions are often opposed to such logical and widely accepted business models such as merit-based pay. As The Economist points out, the DC teachers’ union turned down an offer from Rhee to double teachers’ salaries if tenure was removed and merit-based pay instituted. How such a refusal by the union helps the teachers – particularly the good ones – is questionable, but the harm done to students is palpable. A mock discussion, articulated by Christie, between a child and a parent sums up the foolishness of the unions,
To believe that, this is what you have to believe: Let's say your son comes home and he says, "Mom, Dad, I can't study. I can't study, I can't work, my grades are suffering, because you know, Mrs. Smith, she's not getting her pay raises. And it gets worse," he said, feigning whines. "She actually has to pay 1.5 percent of her salary for health benefits. I cannot focus. I cannot focus with that knowledge. Mom, Dad, stop the madness. Give this woman her raise and her free health benefits and I'll get all A's."Ultimately, it is the schools and the students – and hence America – that suffer. The backward, selfish, and short-sighted policies of the unions sap resources that could otherwise help students. Instead, these resources aid the institutional structure of the union and the worst-of-the-worst teachers. If America wants to continue its growth and not see our children and economy continue to fall behind those of China and India, it is time to break the stranglehold that these partisan interests have on our schools.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
It's a Jungle Out There!
The left – environmentalists in particular – have long had an affinity for the jungle. The majesty and biodiversity of unmolested nature have inspired generations on the left to protect the jungle from man’s adulterous hands. In response, the right has often scorned such appreciation as the sentiment of mere hippies and tree-huggers. The jungle becomes a battleground between conservationists and capitalists.
But while the left claims the ‘righteous path’ of stewardship of the jungle, there is a lesson found in there that offers profound support to the beliefs of the right. If one spends a small quantum of time in a jungle, it becomes apparent that it is a prime metaphor for capitalism.
At first this may seem contradictory. After all, the common understanding the jungle is the epitome of nature, while the market is the embodiment of man’s conquest of nature. However, the fact often overlooked is that the market-system is nature. Men, in their hubris, often try to separate the world of mankind from the natural, forgetting that although humankind certainly has an inordinate power to alter his landscape, it still operates within the system of nature.
The beauty and biodiversity of the jungle arise from the same source that fosters the market-system – competition. Every actor in the jungle, whether plant or animal, is operating in its own self-interest, for its own survival. And while many environmentalists attempt to hang their hats on the concept of balance-of-nature, what is missed is that this balance comes spontaneously and is in no way planned. The panther is not a noble creature that consciously oversees the inner workings of jungle, but a selfish individual that takes what he can to provide for his own survival. If he fails, he dies; if he succeeds, someone else dies. There is no concept of justice, simply a self-correcting balance.
This leads to a high level of competition and subsequently specialization. This becomes abundantly clear if one looks at the profusion of wildlife and the niche roles that each species plays in the jungle system. Not only does competition develop this specialization, but it leads to a tangible wealth. The wealth of the jungle is a rich mosaic of life, of colors and of activity. In practice, the world of Charles Darwin is not that far from the market system of competition as elucidated by Adam Smith.
What is striking is that so many environmentalists stand against the notions of capitalism and never realize that they grow from the same source. This does not mean to disregard the natural competition in which environmentalists and capitalists engage over the use (or lack of use) of natural resources – which obviously puts them at odds. However, what is significant is that many can recognize the beauty of this natural, competitive process in the environment, while simultaneously dismissing it in the human environs of the world. In truth, those that appreciate this magnificence in nature should, at least in a philosophical sense, fall closer to the capitalists of the right, than the socialist planners of the left.
But while the left claims the ‘righteous path’ of stewardship of the jungle, there is a lesson found in there that offers profound support to the beliefs of the right. If one spends a small quantum of time in a jungle, it becomes apparent that it is a prime metaphor for capitalism.
At first this may seem contradictory. After all, the common understanding the jungle is the epitome of nature, while the market is the embodiment of man’s conquest of nature. However, the fact often overlooked is that the market-system is nature. Men, in their hubris, often try to separate the world of mankind from the natural, forgetting that although humankind certainly has an inordinate power to alter his landscape, it still operates within the system of nature.
The beauty and biodiversity of the jungle arise from the same source that fosters the market-system – competition. Every actor in the jungle, whether plant or animal, is operating in its own self-interest, for its own survival. And while many environmentalists attempt to hang their hats on the concept of balance-of-nature, what is missed is that this balance comes spontaneously and is in no way planned. The panther is not a noble creature that consciously oversees the inner workings of jungle, but a selfish individual that takes what he can to provide for his own survival. If he fails, he dies; if he succeeds, someone else dies. There is no concept of justice, simply a self-correcting balance.
This leads to a high level of competition and subsequently specialization. This becomes abundantly clear if one looks at the profusion of wildlife and the niche roles that each species plays in the jungle system. Not only does competition develop this specialization, but it leads to a tangible wealth. The wealth of the jungle is a rich mosaic of life, of colors and of activity. In practice, the world of Charles Darwin is not that far from the market system of competition as elucidated by Adam Smith.
What is striking is that so many environmentalists stand against the notions of capitalism and never realize that they grow from the same source. This does not mean to disregard the natural competition in which environmentalists and capitalists engage over the use (or lack of use) of natural resources – which obviously puts them at odds. However, what is significant is that many can recognize the beauty of this natural, competitive process in the environment, while simultaneously dismissing it in the human environs of the world. In truth, those that appreciate this magnificence in nature should, at least in a philosophical sense, fall closer to the capitalists of the right, than the socialist planners of the left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)