The blog once languished

Extensive use of Facebook has led me to neglect my blog, and my friends and fans are still better advised to find me on Mr. Zuckerberg’s creation.  But this blog does exist and the oddball collection of posts here could, feasibly, provide some insight into things.

What does it mean to be liberal or conservative?

History shows a much deeper philosophical debate over the meanings of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ than we have been led to believe.

Positive or negative rights?

Negative rights may be described as liberties, or, quite simply, the government leaving one alone.  The Bill of Rights has several examples.  Free speech in the First Amendment, for all its positive connotations, is essentially a ‘negative’ right- the government, as much as it might like to, cannot restrict what people say.  The speaker asks nothing of the government other than to say whatever he wants to and be left alone.  The right to bear arms in the second amendment is also a ‘negative’ right.  The armed individual asks only that the government does not deprive him of his weapon.  A less-discussed but equally valid example is the Third Amendment’s prohibition of the quartering of troops in private dwellings.  The homeowner  asks only that the government not use his house as a barracks.  The Fourth and Fifth Amendments both, in essence, describe negative rights, and these shining examples of what a government seeking authority from the consent of the governed must provide for the governed; people are not to be searched without warrant, nor forced to testify against themselves.

The well-known Eighth Amendment is also a negative right- the right not to be punished in a cruel and unusual manner.

There are positive rights in the Bill of Rights as well.  The Sixth and Seventh Amendments provide for the right to a jury trial in criminal and civil cases respectively.  For the first time in the Bill of Rights we see something that we wish for the government to provide for us.  In a certain sense, though, this is also a negative right; no one, (or few) would want to be put on trial simply for its own sake; in a jury trial, of an established district, where the accused may understand the accusations and call witnesses in his favor, there is an implied negative right where the accused could be said to be saying to the government, ‘do not deprive me of life, liberty, or property for unjust cause, leave me alone unless I have truly committed a crime or tort that can be proven by a fair and equitable system.”

We would seemingly be faced with the conundrum between providing for people’s need or plundering the wealthy to provide for those who cannot, or do not, provide for themselves.

We have been told many lies in the course of the health care debate.  Republicans have argued against the health care bill not because they hate health or, necessarily, are owned by health care providers, although political contributions by private individuals are a serious public policy issue.  It seems likely to me that many Republicans opposed the health care reform legislation out of a serious philosophical concern that the positive right of health care for everybody was, in essence, a bridge too far and could not feasibly be provided by or through the government within the existing fiscal framework.  (If that is not, in fact, the view of any actual Republican, it is, in fact, only my own.)

[Note on the use of male pronouns: There is a deep classical tradition of using "his", "man", "men" and so on when referring to citizens or people in general.  This should not to construed to imply discrimination against women or that they have no role in politics.  In past societies, and even in the United States before women's suffrage and equal rights, the pronoun could be construed as onerous or used to unfairly exclude women from public discourse or participation in politics.  Today, however  A main reason for using only one set of gender pronouns is that it is simpler and provides continuity and readability in a given work.  A secondary reason is that, in our approach to government, we are, in essence, all 'men', both men and women alike, possessed of full rights, freedoms, and responsibilities.  This essay should be read with that understanding in mind.]

The Pro-Life Movement Has Failed

The recent failure of Republicans in Congress to de-fund abortion provider Planned Parenthood illustrates the broad failure of the pro-life movement as a political phenomenon.  From it’s origins in the immediate aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision, the pro-life movement- which I always supported ideologically but whose tone, perspective, and judgementalism I always found unattractive ranging into repulsive- always seemed to have guilt as it’s primary weapon.  The politicized attack on ‘liberals’ further seemed to generate the resentment of the very at-risk, lower-income women the pro-life movement should have been trying to connect with in order to rescue their children from abortion.  I feel as if we’ve had a 35 year object lesson in what not to do when using the political system to attack a social ill.

Thoughts on the Wars

Seymour Martin Lipset did extensive research on the nature of democracy, economies, society and peace, none of which was read by George W. Bush.  In fact, as far as I can tell, George W. Bush convinced us to fight the Iraq war and continue the Afghanistan war by saying that democracy is good and evil is bad.  This left opponents of these wars in the precarious position of having to argue that democracy was bad and maybe evil wasn’t that bad after all.  Somebody firmly grounded in a good Surrealist tradition- I’m looking at you, Marcel Duchamp- should have argued that evil is good and democracy is an eggplant.  (Don’t think you can escape from this by being dead;  we all know that death is just a midnight ride to Schenectady.)

This explains a lot of the Orwellian feeling that pervaded during the Bush years.  ”Democracy is good,” Bush would argue, leaving opponents of the war, including me, going, “Yes… but-but-but…” and then devolving into some kind of pseudo-intellectualist nonsense, or taking contrasting positions on the fate of $87 billion dollars.

Our failure to differentiate between two different things is a major part of what led to these unending wars.  The argument should have been reformulated from “Democracy is good, Saddam Hussein is bad,” to “It’s bad to invade a country that has not demonstrably committed and act of war against us,” in the case of Iraq, and “We should leave Afghanistan to itself, as regrettable as it is, because we cannot export democracy by force to a society that is unready for it.”  It’s clear now that 9/11 blurred our thinking and made threats seem greater than they were.  The truth is that the type of limited-war, special forces operations that destroyed bin Laden’s network at Tora Bora could be repeated, if necessary, without bringing democracy to Afghanistan, and that a reprehensible, oppressive but containable dictator now seems like a better option, from the standpoint of US national security, than an open-ended war and an Iraq with an uncertain future.

We deal with the times we are given, however. I still believe we should either make a much greater effort- ten times greater- to win the wars, or simply withdraw and admit that our objectives were only achieved in a limited sense.

The lessons for the future should be clear.  We must deepen our understanding of the conditions that are likely to produce democracy, as Professor Lipset has done.  We also must not let a sudden, frightening shock blur our understanding of political and military realities to such a degree that we make commitments out of line with our willingness to meet them.

Ajax, Hector, Congress- And the path to victory over the deficit

The Iliad is the ancient epic poem of the war between Greece and Troy, and one of the most significant pieces of writing ever done, a true classic.  Classics are classics for a reason, in part because reading  the Iliad today one still draws fresh and relevant insight.

The poem is divided into 24 books.  In Book 7, two heroes are drawn into combat together.  The first is Hector, Troy’s great hero, the strongest man on that side, the one the besieged city is counting on to preserve their freedom.  Frustrated by the Greek warriors’ unwillingness to fight him directly, he issues taunts, essentially daring them to come forth.  The near- giant Ajax responds, and the two men fight, hurling spears and rocks at eachother and almost killing eachother until both agree they’ve had enough.

The fight itself is interesting enough.  What’s more interesting is the way the two men respond to eachother after nearly suffering death at the other’s hand.  Hector gives Ajax a gleaming silver sword, and Ajax gives Hector a huge supple war belt.  The two men part on good terms, with deep respect for eachother.

Why can’t politics be more like that?

The issues and turmoil politicians go through often seem like fights to the death. My hope is that when they fight they do it in such a way that they can respect eachother afterwords.  Sometimes, the issues and ideologies that drive our politics become more important than respecting the person that disagrees with us.  What if it was the other way around?

Today in both Lansing and Washington there is gridlock.  On the issue of budgets alone, clear policy choices can be made.  In my opinion, painful but necessary tax increases and spending cuts are the best way to avert continued fiscal crisis on both the state and national levels.  And yet Congress in Washington seems unwilling to put through the necessary increases, largely because so many of them have political opponents who will ridicule that choice.

What if our politics was better thought out?  What if disagreements didn’t lead to denigration?  Could Congress and other governing authorities reach better decisions if they weren’t so afraid?

At some point, political courage is needed.  Hector challenged the Greeks because he thought it was the right thing to do to defend his homeland, not because he knew he was going to walk away with a free belt.  It may seem a bit of a stretch to compare epic heroes to today’s Congressmen, but it should not seem so strange; the heroes of the Iliad were ‘aristaie’ a Greek word meaning ‘the best’, which is where we get our word ‘aristocrat’.  And what, ultimately, does it mean to be an ‘aristocrat’ in our society, which is free from formal institutionalized class distinctions?  I would argue that it means to be a leader who is willing to take responsibility and risk personal loss or sacrifice in order to serve the community as a whole.

I don’t expect congressmen to start throwing spears and rocks at eachother, although that would be great to watch and increase C-SPAN’s ratings.  What we should expect- and what voters do expect- is for them to rise above narrow concerns of a single election and chart the best course for our nation’s future. It’s what we sent them there to do, it is the very definition of a democratic republic.

After their dispute, Hector and Ajax both lived to fight another day.  So will everyone serving in the 435 seats in the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate.  The question is if our aristocrats will make the tough choice to impose unpopular taxes that could cost them in the short term.  Hector didn’t enjoy being nearly crushed by the two-ton boulder Ajax threw at him.  No one running for Congress enjoys harsh criticism from their opponent over an unpopular tax increase.  (If you think the two aren’t analogous, try running for office.)  We got into this debt and deficit predicament because past leaders lacked political courage to face the danger of criticism or outright defeat.  If Congress continues to avoid responsibility, the problem will continue to get worse.

There is also another perspective to this debate.  Some reading this may feel that the tax cuts would come at the wrong time because the economy is bad.  Others may be concerned that the tax increase will cost them money.  But if we wait for the economy to improve before we raise taxes, it may be too late to prevent a catastrophic fiscal crisis.  And, to those who are directly affected by the increase, I would say this: perhaps we are all aristocrats.  Perhaps we all must ‘suffer’- and I put it in quotes for a reason, because a 5% tax increase for the top 2% of wealth earners shouldn’t cause actual suffering- in order to start setting America right again.

Those who have finished the epics know what fate Troy suffered.  But we have a choice in our own.  The path to victory over the deficit is courage.

Craft and Criticism

The exchange I had with a member of a Troy Homeowner’s association is still one of the most significant ones of my life.  I had made a long rambling speech criticising things, and he pointed out that it is easier to criticize than craft.

I find that criticism astute.  Doug told me about the research he’s doing on the economic impact of the clean air act.  The point is, the amount of information needed to criticize a given policy is much less- it can be an order of magnitude less- than the amount of information needed to effectively craft a new policy.

Politics- The Thing I Can’t Escape

I’m relentlessly drawn to politics.  I find the notion that politics would go on without me in the world distasteful.  Working for induvidual candidates is a grind sometimes, but all the same, I find myself drawn back into politics over and over.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!