Yesterday, the U.S. Senate reformed its rules in a way that largely leaves the filibuster intact. Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in early 2012 were unconstitutional. Taken together, these two actions are a recipe for another two to four years of institutional dysfunction in Washington.
Today's decision on recess appointments is particularly important. The president has the power under the constitution to fill positions requiring Senate confirmation for the duration of the current Congress while the Senate is in recess. The rule was designed for the eighteenth century, when the Senate would not meet for months at a time. The rule allowed the President to ensure the government continued to function while the Senate was away, without completely abrogating the Senate's right to advise and consent on Presidential appointments. In more recent times, Presidents have used the procedure to appoint controversial candidates while the Senate was on vacation. George W. Bush, for example, used this procedure to appoint John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations.
In the last Congress, enough vacancies occurred on the five-member National Labor Relations Board so that it could not achieve a quorum. Republicans in the Senate filibustered all of Obama's appointments, so the Board could not function. Obama threatened recess appointments to the Board. Republicans in the Senate did not like this, so they refused to allow the Senate to formally recess. So during the 2011-2012 holiday break, the Senate was gaveled into session and gaveled out of session every business day, but nothing substantive was done. The Obama administration made a finding that these pro-forma sessions were not real sessions, so Obama was free to make recess appointments.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. As a general proposition I think the court got it right. Determining whether the Senate is in session or not should be up to the Senate, not the President. The Senate plays an important role in approving presidential appointments. This is especially true when it comes to independent regulatory agencies like the NLRB and the federal courts. The President should not be able to easily circumvent this process.
This is where the relatively toothless filibuster reform comes in. Obama's recess appointments were not made because the Senate would have or did reject his appointments. They were made because the Republican minority would not allow them to come to a vote at all. The filibuster reform may change this for district court judges and lower-level appointments (that remains to be seen), but it will not change a damn thing for NLRB appointments. There are 55 Democrats in the new Senate. At least 51 of them will vote with the President on virtually every appointment he makes. The Republicans still have the power to prevent this.
This is not right. Arguments can be made as to the extent of the advise and consent authority of the Senate. Some argue that the President is entitled to his team and appointments should only be rejected in egregious cases. Some argue that the Senate is co-equal, or nearly so, in the appointment process and should extensively vet all appointments. Even if you accept the latter argument, there is no reason why a minority should be able to prevent any vote whatsoever.
A Senate minority should not have the power to completely shut down duly established governmental boards. This is exactly what the Republicans in the Senate are doing because they will not allow a vote on any new members of the NLRB because they are anti-Labor. They do this without great fanfare and largely out of view of the electorate. It is not part of the design of the Constitution and it is grossly undemocratic.
The only solution is the elimination of the filibuster as we know it. There are various plans for this afoot, but they will likely not be implemented any time soon. Harry Reid has already said no new reforms in this Congress. It is possible reforms will be passed at the beginning of the next Congress in 2015, but I am not optimistic.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Friday, December 14, 2012
Our Plague of Gun Violence
It has happened again. Today there was a mass-shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. A few days ago, it happened in a shopping mall in Portland, Oregon. We are still not that far removed from the atrocity in Aurora, Colorado. Mass shootings seem to be becoming a disturbing trend, but maybe that is just a byproduct of media hype. Even if they are not happening more often, I think it is fair to say that the issue should be discussed with a goal of amelioration.
After one of these events, the same arguments take place, with the various sides barely listening to one another. The gun control crowd talks about how we need more gun control. The anti-gun control crowd usually has a little more diversity of opinion. Some say the answer is more guns and less control. Some say we need to do a better job of enforcing the laws already on the books. Some throw their hands up and say that nothing can be done, crazies are going to find a way to kill people. And then there is the group that always seems to say "too soon." As in, "it's too soon to have any kind of discussion about this." President Obama's spokesman said as much today. Frankly, that is an abdication of leadership.
Jeff Goldberg has a provocative piece in the current issue of The Atlantic. He is generally a moderate, maybe a shade to the left of center, and treats the issue of gun violence and what to do about it fairly. His conclusion is that maybe more guns really is the answer.
Whether you like it or not, there are guns everywhere in America. We cannot ban or confiscate our way out of this problem. However, there are some things we should seriously consider:
1-Close the gun show loophole. Forty percent of guns are purchased at gun shows where background check and waiting period regulations either don't exist, are not enforced or are relaxed. Nobody should be allowed to purchase a gun without a background check and everyone should have to wait five days before picking their gun up.
Yes, this will impose a burden on law-abiding citizens who just want to exercise their right to bear arms. Yes, it will not fully stop guns from falling into the hands of felons and crazies. But it will prevent some guns from falling into the wrong hands. To me, that is an acceptable trade-off.
2-Civilians should not be allowed to privately own certain classes of firearms. I don't know exactly which weapons should be banned, but some have no purpose other than mass killing and nobody needs them.
Any Second Amendment argument against this is specious. Every right in the Bill of Rights is qualified in one way or another. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and expect to escape punishment. Also, just in case anyone was wondering, there is no need to keep automatic weapons on hand to start an insurrection when the UN takes over. It is not going to happen. If you think it is, you really ought to see a psychologist.
3-Maybe we should require x number of hours of safety training prior to allowing someone to own a gun. This likely won't cut back on mass shootings like the one that happened today, but could prevent accidental shootings, which are still a problem. We make people take a test and get licence before they can drive a car. Guns are dangerous and it is not unreasonable to expect people to take a test and get a license before they use one.
4-Maybe, just maybe, it is time to start issuing more permits to carry and carry concealed handguns. Permits would require additional training and not be handed out as of right. But if there are more proven responsible people floating around with more guns maybe the death toll won't be as high. Goldberg even thinks that it may have a deterrent effect. I tend to doubt that. People who do this stuff generally are not the type to be deterred. Anyone who approached a mass slaughter rationally would realize that the gunman is always captured or killed. However, maybe these mass shooters would be taken down after only 2 or 3 dead instead of a dozen.
It is grim to think of things in those terms. But that is where we are. We can make progress around the edges, but we are never going to confiscate the hundreds of millions of firearms at large in this country. And we are never going to completely eliminate the risk of these mass shootings. The counter-argument is that more concealed weapons will equal still more violence. Read the Goldberg piece. The evidence does not bear this out.
If we could completely transform our society and eliminate the culture where firearms are valued, we wouldn't have this problem. But let's be honest, that is not going to happen. People own firearms for a variety of reasons. Most of them legitimate. I don't own a firearm now and have no reason to. I live in a well policed city in a high rise with 24 hour desk attendants and sturdy doors. If I lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere, maybe I would buy one.
But everyone, especially responsible gun owners, should realize that simply parroting guns don't kill people, people kill people is irresponsible nonsense. Guns do make it a lot easier to kill people. If every gun disappeared today, would all murders cease. Absolutely not. Twenty two people in a Chinese school were just knifed and severely injured. But we need to start thinking about societal problems in a different way. We've got lots of problems and most of them have been with us for a long, long time. The solutions are never instant and rarely easy. The way to go about solving problems is one step at a time, working diligently to make life better little by little.
Just because relatively minor regulatory changes and an assault weapon ban won't solve the problem completely and will involve some inconvenience for law-abiding citizens does not mean that they are not worth doing. I would like to think that even most gun owners accept this fact. And maybe, just maybe it is time to start experimenting with allowing well-trained individuals to carry more guns in public. It would make some people nervous. But if it reduces the death toll of the next mass shooting, that would be worth it too.
After one of these events, the same arguments take place, with the various sides barely listening to one another. The gun control crowd talks about how we need more gun control. The anti-gun control crowd usually has a little more diversity of opinion. Some say the answer is more guns and less control. Some say we need to do a better job of enforcing the laws already on the books. Some throw their hands up and say that nothing can be done, crazies are going to find a way to kill people. And then there is the group that always seems to say "too soon." As in, "it's too soon to have any kind of discussion about this." President Obama's spokesman said as much today. Frankly, that is an abdication of leadership.
Jeff Goldberg has a provocative piece in the current issue of The Atlantic. He is generally a moderate, maybe a shade to the left of center, and treats the issue of gun violence and what to do about it fairly. His conclusion is that maybe more guns really is the answer.
Whether you like it or not, there are guns everywhere in America. We cannot ban or confiscate our way out of this problem. However, there are some things we should seriously consider:
1-Close the gun show loophole. Forty percent of guns are purchased at gun shows where background check and waiting period regulations either don't exist, are not enforced or are relaxed. Nobody should be allowed to purchase a gun without a background check and everyone should have to wait five days before picking their gun up.
Yes, this will impose a burden on law-abiding citizens who just want to exercise their right to bear arms. Yes, it will not fully stop guns from falling into the hands of felons and crazies. But it will prevent some guns from falling into the wrong hands. To me, that is an acceptable trade-off.
2-Civilians should not be allowed to privately own certain classes of firearms. I don't know exactly which weapons should be banned, but some have no purpose other than mass killing and nobody needs them.
Any Second Amendment argument against this is specious. Every right in the Bill of Rights is qualified in one way or another. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and expect to escape punishment. Also, just in case anyone was wondering, there is no need to keep automatic weapons on hand to start an insurrection when the UN takes over. It is not going to happen. If you think it is, you really ought to see a psychologist.
3-Maybe we should require x number of hours of safety training prior to allowing someone to own a gun. This likely won't cut back on mass shootings like the one that happened today, but could prevent accidental shootings, which are still a problem. We make people take a test and get licence before they can drive a car. Guns are dangerous and it is not unreasonable to expect people to take a test and get a license before they use one.
4-Maybe, just maybe, it is time to start issuing more permits to carry and carry concealed handguns. Permits would require additional training and not be handed out as of right. But if there are more proven responsible people floating around with more guns maybe the death toll won't be as high. Goldberg even thinks that it may have a deterrent effect. I tend to doubt that. People who do this stuff generally are not the type to be deterred. Anyone who approached a mass slaughter rationally would realize that the gunman is always captured or killed. However, maybe these mass shooters would be taken down after only 2 or 3 dead instead of a dozen.
It is grim to think of things in those terms. But that is where we are. We can make progress around the edges, but we are never going to confiscate the hundreds of millions of firearms at large in this country. And we are never going to completely eliminate the risk of these mass shootings. The counter-argument is that more concealed weapons will equal still more violence. Read the Goldberg piece. The evidence does not bear this out.
If we could completely transform our society and eliminate the culture where firearms are valued, we wouldn't have this problem. But let's be honest, that is not going to happen. People own firearms for a variety of reasons. Most of them legitimate. I don't own a firearm now and have no reason to. I live in a well policed city in a high rise with 24 hour desk attendants and sturdy doors. If I lived on a farm in the middle of nowhere, maybe I would buy one.
But everyone, especially responsible gun owners, should realize that simply parroting guns don't kill people, people kill people is irresponsible nonsense. Guns do make it a lot easier to kill people. If every gun disappeared today, would all murders cease. Absolutely not. Twenty two people in a Chinese school were just knifed and severely injured. But we need to start thinking about societal problems in a different way. We've got lots of problems and most of them have been with us for a long, long time. The solutions are never instant and rarely easy. The way to go about solving problems is one step at a time, working diligently to make life better little by little.
Just because relatively minor regulatory changes and an assault weapon ban won't solve the problem completely and will involve some inconvenience for law-abiding citizens does not mean that they are not worth doing. I would like to think that even most gun owners accept this fact. And maybe, just maybe it is time to start experimenting with allowing well-trained individuals to carry more guns in public. It would make some people nervous. But if it reduces the death toll of the next mass shooting, that would be worth it too.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
The Truth is Still Inconvenient
Read this.
It is directed at the journalistic community, but it really applies to all of us. What are we doing to fight climate change? I will be the first to admit that rarely does a day pass when I do not reflect on climate change, but it is even more rare that I take any action against it. This has to change today.
Climate change is real. Failure to acknowledge this basic fact should disqualify you from any position of responsibility in any public or private organization. The polar ice caps are melting. The ten hottest years on record have all been within the last twenty years. The middle third of America has been gripped by the worst drought since the dust bowl. Last year massive forest fires nearly suffocated Moscow. Other extreme weather events are proliferating.
As global temperatures rise and more carbon enters the atmosphere, sea levels rise, the ocean becomes more acidic and weather becomes more extreme. The scariest thing about climate change today is that when we look back on the range of scary predictions from climate scientists of five and ten years ago, what has actually happened is between the median scenario and the worst case scenario. And time is running short.
How will this affect actual people? Certain small Pacific island nations will be wiped off the map. That's not great, but not a world-historical catastrophe. Think instead about Bangladesh. It is one of the most densely populated low lying countries in the world. It has terrible infrastructure and has suffered from devastating floods since well before climate change was recognized as a problem. At least one hundred million people will need to move. They will likely just walk into neighboring India. Aside from all the human suffering that that will entail, it is a recipe for geopolitical chaos.
Closer to home, coastal flooding will be a growing problem. Will we simply pay to rebuild every time or will we require massive population relocations away from the coasts? Insurance companies will surely not be writing flood insurance. The federal government would be the only entity able to pay, but is that really a good allocation of scarce resources?
That is only a very brief and incomplete review of the consequences of inaction. Time is short, but there are still things we can do to avert this catastrophe.
First, there are things that you can do to actually use less energy. The biggest one of these is simply to drive less. Yes, I realize most people in America need to do at least some driving, but most people drive more than is necessary. When public transit is an option, use it. Make shopping lists. Yes, make shopping lists. When you buy everything at once, you can make fewer trips. Every gallon of gasoline you do not burn is carbon that is not released into the atmosphere and four dollars in your pocket.
Be more energy efficient in your home. In most areas now, if you have a free-standing single-family home, you should be able to purchase solar panels with little up front cost. Set your thermostat two degrees colder in the winter and two degrees warmer in the summer and two degrees colder and warmer still when you are not at home. Invest in insulation and energy-efficient windows. Buy the most energy-efficient appliances available. Small differences add up when everyone contributes. And energy efficiency saves money.
If you have a position of responsibility in the company you work for, make these changes in your company too. Wal-Mart gets a bad rap in many ways and deservedly so in some. But Wal-Mart takes energy efficiency seriously. It is good for PR and good for the bottom line, so they design their stores to be more energy efficient, their packaging to be lighter and their truck routes to be more efficient. If you are in a position to do these types of things you should!
Personal action, virtuous as it is, is not enough, because not everybody will do these things unless compelled to. Advocacy is also important and everyone can become an advocate.
The first way to advocate is to write. Write a letter to your local paper asking why they haven't done a story on how climate change will affect your town. Write to all your elected officials from city council member to President. Do this especially if they accept climate science. They need to know not just that it is real, but that it is a priority. Every governmental entity should be addressing climate change, so every elected official deserves to hear from you about it.Four years ago both candidates for president agreed that action needed to be taken on climate change. Today, Mitt Romney wants to extract and burn every ounce of coal in Appalachia and barely even mentions the falsehood of clean coal. Barack Obama is basically taking the John McCain 2008 position with his "all of the above" policy. This is because the fossil fuel industry spends a huge amount of money buying politicians and cowing the public.
There are a variety of public policy changes that can ameliorate climate change. Cap and trade schemes. Replacing taxation on income with taxation on carbon usage. Sending more efficient cook stoves to sub-Saharan Africa. Closing government-owned lands to oil exploration and coal mining. Even enhancing safety regulations for coal miners (and thus increasing costs of production) would have a positive effect. This is an incomplete list, but do some research and let your elected officials know these actions are not just good policy, but priorities.
If you have money, give it. You are already, one way or another, giving money to fossil fuel companies that are acting to protect their interests. Give some to the Sierra Club so that they can hire more people to shut down coal fired electric plants. Buy carbon offsets for your energy usage (but be careful, some of these outfits are more reputable than others). Give to candidates that make climate change a priority.
Find out what is hot on the climate change front in your area and go to meetings and make yourself heard.
This is clearly an incomplete list, but every thing you do tomorrow that you did not do today is progress. Your example may inspire others or it may dispel ignorance.
Robert Kennedy once said:“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
It was true of the progressive movements of his time and it is true of the anti-climate change movement of our time. If you want your kids and grandchildren to inherit a world as good as the one we currently inhabit, you, we, need to take action today. We need to take action tomorrow. We need to take action next week, next month and next year until we solve this problem. If we wait much longer it will be too late.
It is directed at the journalistic community, but it really applies to all of us. What are we doing to fight climate change? I will be the first to admit that rarely does a day pass when I do not reflect on climate change, but it is even more rare that I take any action against it. This has to change today.
Climate change is real. Failure to acknowledge this basic fact should disqualify you from any position of responsibility in any public or private organization. The polar ice caps are melting. The ten hottest years on record have all been within the last twenty years. The middle third of America has been gripped by the worst drought since the dust bowl. Last year massive forest fires nearly suffocated Moscow. Other extreme weather events are proliferating.
As global temperatures rise and more carbon enters the atmosphere, sea levels rise, the ocean becomes more acidic and weather becomes more extreme. The scariest thing about climate change today is that when we look back on the range of scary predictions from climate scientists of five and ten years ago, what has actually happened is between the median scenario and the worst case scenario. And time is running short.
How will this affect actual people? Certain small Pacific island nations will be wiped off the map. That's not great, but not a world-historical catastrophe. Think instead about Bangladesh. It is one of the most densely populated low lying countries in the world. It has terrible infrastructure and has suffered from devastating floods since well before climate change was recognized as a problem. At least one hundred million people will need to move. They will likely just walk into neighboring India. Aside from all the human suffering that that will entail, it is a recipe for geopolitical chaos.
Closer to home, coastal flooding will be a growing problem. Will we simply pay to rebuild every time or will we require massive population relocations away from the coasts? Insurance companies will surely not be writing flood insurance. The federal government would be the only entity able to pay, but is that really a good allocation of scarce resources?
That is only a very brief and incomplete review of the consequences of inaction. Time is short, but there are still things we can do to avert this catastrophe.
First, there are things that you can do to actually use less energy. The biggest one of these is simply to drive less. Yes, I realize most people in America need to do at least some driving, but most people drive more than is necessary. When public transit is an option, use it. Make shopping lists. Yes, make shopping lists. When you buy everything at once, you can make fewer trips. Every gallon of gasoline you do not burn is carbon that is not released into the atmosphere and four dollars in your pocket.
Be more energy efficient in your home. In most areas now, if you have a free-standing single-family home, you should be able to purchase solar panels with little up front cost. Set your thermostat two degrees colder in the winter and two degrees warmer in the summer and two degrees colder and warmer still when you are not at home. Invest in insulation and energy-efficient windows. Buy the most energy-efficient appliances available. Small differences add up when everyone contributes. And energy efficiency saves money.
If you have a position of responsibility in the company you work for, make these changes in your company too. Wal-Mart gets a bad rap in many ways and deservedly so in some. But Wal-Mart takes energy efficiency seriously. It is good for PR and good for the bottom line, so they design their stores to be more energy efficient, their packaging to be lighter and their truck routes to be more efficient. If you are in a position to do these types of things you should!
Personal action, virtuous as it is, is not enough, because not everybody will do these things unless compelled to. Advocacy is also important and everyone can become an advocate.
The first way to advocate is to write. Write a letter to your local paper asking why they haven't done a story on how climate change will affect your town. Write to all your elected officials from city council member to President. Do this especially if they accept climate science. They need to know not just that it is real, but that it is a priority. Every governmental entity should be addressing climate change, so every elected official deserves to hear from you about it.Four years ago both candidates for president agreed that action needed to be taken on climate change. Today, Mitt Romney wants to extract and burn every ounce of coal in Appalachia and barely even mentions the falsehood of clean coal. Barack Obama is basically taking the John McCain 2008 position with his "all of the above" policy. This is because the fossil fuel industry spends a huge amount of money buying politicians and cowing the public.
There are a variety of public policy changes that can ameliorate climate change. Cap and trade schemes. Replacing taxation on income with taxation on carbon usage. Sending more efficient cook stoves to sub-Saharan Africa. Closing government-owned lands to oil exploration and coal mining. Even enhancing safety regulations for coal miners (and thus increasing costs of production) would have a positive effect. This is an incomplete list, but do some research and let your elected officials know these actions are not just good policy, but priorities.
If you have money, give it. You are already, one way or another, giving money to fossil fuel companies that are acting to protect their interests. Give some to the Sierra Club so that they can hire more people to shut down coal fired electric plants. Buy carbon offsets for your energy usage (but be careful, some of these outfits are more reputable than others). Give to candidates that make climate change a priority.
Find out what is hot on the climate change front in your area and go to meetings and make yourself heard.
This is clearly an incomplete list, but every thing you do tomorrow that you did not do today is progress. Your example may inspire others or it may dispel ignorance.
Robert Kennedy once said:“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
It was true of the progressive movements of his time and it is true of the anti-climate change movement of our time. If you want your kids and grandchildren to inherit a world as good as the one we currently inhabit, you, we, need to take action today. We need to take action tomorrow. We need to take action next week, next month and next year until we solve this problem. If we wait much longer it will be too late.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Why I am a Democrat
Independence is seen as a virtue in our political system. Partisanship and even the mere existence of political parties are seen as, at best, necessary evils of politics and governance. People are encouraged to vote for individuals and largely ignore the D or R next to their names. By an overly circuitous route, this bias favors my party. Democrats, although outnumbering Republicans, are more heavily concentrated. If everyone voted their party all the time, the Senatorial map would look a lot like the Presidential map. Democrats would get more votes but fewer Senators because California gets the same number of Senators as Wyoming. Therefore, you often see Democrats running against their party and the party tolerates this. See Joe Manchin.
This annoys me. I will accept Senator Joe Manchin because even though he only votes the way I want to half the time, the alternative would be someone who votes that way I want one tenth of the time. What I do not accept is that political centrism (as opposed to true moderation and willingness to compromise) is an end in and of itself. Just because the Democratic platform espouses A and the Republican platform espouses B, it does not follow that the optimal answer is C.
The two major political parties in this country are now largely unified around values. I am a registered Democrat because I find my values align with the Democratic party. Herein I offer an explanation as to why. It may end up like a Ptolemaic astrolabe, but I'll do my best.
My primary political value is equality. My secondary political value is autonomy. These values are colored by my best reading of, for lack of a better term, the facts on the ground. Government has a role to play in promoting equality and ensuring autonomy to the greatest number of citizens possible. Conflicts occasionally arise and I do my best to reason through them.
A few illustrations.
I support gay marriage. So does the Democratic party. Gay marriage is a matter of equality. I can think of no reason why homosexuals do not deserve the same rights to marry the person of their choice as heterosexuals. Gay marriage also gives gay people autonomy over their own lives and does nothing to anyone else.
I support abortion rights. So does the Democratic party. Women deserve a choice as to when to get pregnant. They deserve autonomy over their own bodies. I cannot really answer the question of when a fetus becomes a child and I do not believe the government can either. This decision should therefore be left to the individual. There is also an equality interest here as unwanted pregnancies inherently affect women more than men.
I support aggressive environmental regulation and enforcement. So does the Democratic party. Equality and personal autonomy are dependent on certain public goods remaining public. Among these are clean air and water. Environmental degradation is a real threat. Whether via command and control or market-based regulations, direct government involvement has proven to be the only way to stop pollution. The unfettered free market cannot solve this problem. I also believe climate change to be a very serious problem, perhaps moreso than the median Democrat.
I support a comprehensive social safety net, including universal access to quality health care and vigorous anti-poverty efforts. In particular, I support Obamacare, as does the Democratic party. The goal is universal access to quality health care. Obamacare is likely the most conservative way to achieve this goal. I was not enamored of all the particulars. It is not nearly as elegant as Medicare for all would have been. However, it achieves the goal, and that is the most important thing. Equal access to basic health care is so important that it overrides the limits to personal autonomy it creates. Sometimes trade-offs are inevitable.
I support the right of workers of all types and stripes to unionize and bargain collectively. So does the Democratic party. The facts on the ground indicate that management and capital have inherent power advantages over individual workers and even labor in general. The only way for workers to achieve anything approaching equality is to band together. The enormous power employers have over employees also restricts the autonomy of employees. Not just autonomy, dignity. The modern American workplace is rife with indignities. Workers deserve someone on their side.
I am a Democrat because the Democratic party is committed to equality of opportunity. The Republican party, in my estimation, stands for autonomy above all. Power structures existing in society are either good in and of themselves, or it is simply not government's job to do anything about them.
This is why I am a Democrat.
This annoys me. I will accept Senator Joe Manchin because even though he only votes the way I want to half the time, the alternative would be someone who votes that way I want one tenth of the time. What I do not accept is that political centrism (as opposed to true moderation and willingness to compromise) is an end in and of itself. Just because the Democratic platform espouses A and the Republican platform espouses B, it does not follow that the optimal answer is C.
The two major political parties in this country are now largely unified around values. I am a registered Democrat because I find my values align with the Democratic party. Herein I offer an explanation as to why. It may end up like a Ptolemaic astrolabe, but I'll do my best.
My primary political value is equality. My secondary political value is autonomy. These values are colored by my best reading of, for lack of a better term, the facts on the ground. Government has a role to play in promoting equality and ensuring autonomy to the greatest number of citizens possible. Conflicts occasionally arise and I do my best to reason through them.
A few illustrations.
I support gay marriage. So does the Democratic party. Gay marriage is a matter of equality. I can think of no reason why homosexuals do not deserve the same rights to marry the person of their choice as heterosexuals. Gay marriage also gives gay people autonomy over their own lives and does nothing to anyone else.
I support abortion rights. So does the Democratic party. Women deserve a choice as to when to get pregnant. They deserve autonomy over their own bodies. I cannot really answer the question of when a fetus becomes a child and I do not believe the government can either. This decision should therefore be left to the individual. There is also an equality interest here as unwanted pregnancies inherently affect women more than men.
I support aggressive environmental regulation and enforcement. So does the Democratic party. Equality and personal autonomy are dependent on certain public goods remaining public. Among these are clean air and water. Environmental degradation is a real threat. Whether via command and control or market-based regulations, direct government involvement has proven to be the only way to stop pollution. The unfettered free market cannot solve this problem. I also believe climate change to be a very serious problem, perhaps moreso than the median Democrat.
I support a comprehensive social safety net, including universal access to quality health care and vigorous anti-poverty efforts. In particular, I support Obamacare, as does the Democratic party. The goal is universal access to quality health care. Obamacare is likely the most conservative way to achieve this goal. I was not enamored of all the particulars. It is not nearly as elegant as Medicare for all would have been. However, it achieves the goal, and that is the most important thing. Equal access to basic health care is so important that it overrides the limits to personal autonomy it creates. Sometimes trade-offs are inevitable.
I support the right of workers of all types and stripes to unionize and bargain collectively. So does the Democratic party. The facts on the ground indicate that management and capital have inherent power advantages over individual workers and even labor in general. The only way for workers to achieve anything approaching equality is to band together. The enormous power employers have over employees also restricts the autonomy of employees. Not just autonomy, dignity. The modern American workplace is rife with indignities. Workers deserve someone on their side.
I am a Democrat because the Democratic party is committed to equality of opportunity. The Republican party, in my estimation, stands for autonomy above all. Power structures existing in society are either good in and of themselves, or it is simply not government's job to do anything about them.
This is why I am a Democrat.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Just When I Was Starting to Like W
In quiet moments over the past few weeks I have indulged in some fond reminisces of George W. Bush. Yes, I thought to myself, he had his faults, but he was generally decent. Decent in a way Mitt Romney is not. Bush went out of his way on September 17, 2011 to state that Islam is not the enemy of the United States and Muslims are welcome members of our society. Romney now embraces the purveyors of islamophobia in his party. Bush also ran two campaigns almost completely free of the taint of race-baiting. Romney continues to stand by his demonstrably false welfare attack ads, the only purpose of which is to exploit lingering racial resentment long associated with welfare.
Then I saw this.
Kurt Eichenwald, a reputable reporter, is asserting that the Bush administration knew much more about Bin Laden's plans well before the infamous August 6 daily intelligence brief. The people running his national security apparatus convinced themselves that this was just a clever hoax, a la Patton's fake army prior to the D-Day landings, to distract from the real threat: Saddam Hussein.
If this is true it should permanently destroy any lingering doubts about W's place in history. Disregarding evidence of Bin Laden's plans to continue focusing on evidence regarding Saddam Hussein that did not exist was gross negligence. This is not even a matter of hindsight being 20-20. This is what happens when policy is faith-based instead of evidence-based.
The opportunity costs of the war in Iraq haunt me regularly. If we had not fought that unnecessary war our national debt might be significantly lower. Or we might be well on our way to a functional high-speed rail system. Or we may have been able to finance massive upgrades in schools and public housing to increase energy efficiency and indirectly fight climate change. Or a combination of any of these or other worthy projects.
Now we need to consider the possibility that this obsession with Iraq may have prevented us from stopping the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Then I saw this.
Kurt Eichenwald, a reputable reporter, is asserting that the Bush administration knew much more about Bin Laden's plans well before the infamous August 6 daily intelligence brief. The people running his national security apparatus convinced themselves that this was just a clever hoax, a la Patton's fake army prior to the D-Day landings, to distract from the real threat: Saddam Hussein.
If this is true it should permanently destroy any lingering doubts about W's place in history. Disregarding evidence of Bin Laden's plans to continue focusing on evidence regarding Saddam Hussein that did not exist was gross negligence. This is not even a matter of hindsight being 20-20. This is what happens when policy is faith-based instead of evidence-based.
The opportunity costs of the war in Iraq haunt me regularly. If we had not fought that unnecessary war our national debt might be significantly lower. Or we might be well on our way to a functional high-speed rail system. Or we may have been able to finance massive upgrades in schools and public housing to increase energy efficiency and indirectly fight climate change. Or a combination of any of these or other worthy projects.
Now we need to consider the possibility that this obsession with Iraq may have prevented us from stopping the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Friday, September 07, 2012
God and Jerusalem and Party Platforms
A regular reader asked me what I thought about the brouhaha surrounding the Democratic Party re-inserting God and Jerusalem into the party platform. In short, it was politics at its silliest.
First, God. As Amy Sullivan points out, there was plenty of religiosity in the Democratic platform already and perhaps more than in 2008. As a firm believer in the separation of church and state, there was already too much of a Judeo-Christian God in the Democratic platform. Hindus and Buddhists are just as American as Christians and Jews. Ultimately, I don't care that much though. And the allegation that delegates were booing God is bogus. They were booing the party leaders forcing a change in the platform via voice vote. In fairness, Ron Paul supporters did the same thing at the RNC and were likely not booing Puerto Rico. If you believe this is a Christian nation where religious minorities are tolerated, but not real Americans, maybe the Democratic Party is not for you. But there is no reason to think that the party is a group of godless commmies.
Second, Jerusalem. Oy and vey. Every year, every party, all nonsense. Both parties platforms support moving the U.S. Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Presidents of both parties don't actually do it. Why? Because it is not worth it. Yes, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but it is not worth getting every single Arab government violently angry at us by moving the Embassy there. Jeff Goldberg explains. For the same reason, the U.S. Government does not explicitly recognize the Armenian Genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. It happened. Everyone knows it happened. Turkey likes to pretend it did not happen. Turkey is an important ally on a whole range of issues. So the government does not make any loud proclamations about it.
God and Jerusalem. Both represent identity politics at their silliest. Neither will have any effect after this weekend.
First, God. As Amy Sullivan points out, there was plenty of religiosity in the Democratic platform already and perhaps more than in 2008. As a firm believer in the separation of church and state, there was already too much of a Judeo-Christian God in the Democratic platform. Hindus and Buddhists are just as American as Christians and Jews. Ultimately, I don't care that much though. And the allegation that delegates were booing God is bogus. They were booing the party leaders forcing a change in the platform via voice vote. In fairness, Ron Paul supporters did the same thing at the RNC and were likely not booing Puerto Rico. If you believe this is a Christian nation where religious minorities are tolerated, but not real Americans, maybe the Democratic Party is not for you. But there is no reason to think that the party is a group of godless commmies.
Second, Jerusalem. Oy and vey. Every year, every party, all nonsense. Both parties platforms support moving the U.S. Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Presidents of both parties don't actually do it. Why? Because it is not worth it. Yes, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but it is not worth getting every single Arab government violently angry at us by moving the Embassy there. Jeff Goldberg explains. For the same reason, the U.S. Government does not explicitly recognize the Armenian Genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. It happened. Everyone knows it happened. Turkey likes to pretend it did not happen. Turkey is an important ally on a whole range of issues. So the government does not make any loud proclamations about it.
God and Jerusalem. Both represent identity politics at their silliest. Neither will have any effect after this weekend.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Poor Clint
It seems like the big story from the last night of the Republican convention is Clint Eastwood's channeling of Grandpa Simpson.
It's funny, don't get me wrong, but it is also sad. Clint Eastwood is most people's definition of an All-American Success Story. He is very wealthy, widely-respected and even gave back to his community by serving as mayor of Carmel, CA. Yet even he is now sliding into decrepitude, verbal (if not quite mental) and physical. It is a fate that awaits all of us lucky to live long enough.
At least Clint has his millions to fall back on. Most of the rest of us will rely on much smaller savings (if any), Social Security and Medicare to maintain any kind of dignity in senescence. Maybe the party trying to shift the risks of old-age from society as a whole to elderly individuals should avoid these optics.
(h/t Noreen Malone)
It's funny, don't get me wrong, but it is also sad. Clint Eastwood is most people's definition of an All-American Success Story. He is very wealthy, widely-respected and even gave back to his community by serving as mayor of Carmel, CA. Yet even he is now sliding into decrepitude, verbal (if not quite mental) and physical. It is a fate that awaits all of us lucky to live long enough.
At least Clint has his millions to fall back on. Most of the rest of us will rely on much smaller savings (if any), Social Security and Medicare to maintain any kind of dignity in senescence. Maybe the party trying to shift the risks of old-age from society as a whole to elderly individuals should avoid these optics.
(h/t Noreen Malone)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)