Mr. Perkins, in charge of the Family Research Council, just said on CNN that "fiscal conservatism" means small government, and "social conservatism" means personal responsibility. Really? First of all, the two cannot be separated, but commonly are, both by liberals and conservatives, to fit their narrow agendas. If a fiscal conservative wants small government and low government intervention in financial matters, then it is logically inconsistent to decide that one wants the government to dictate one's socially acceptable behavior. The reverse is also true, but on to Mr. Perkins's claim about personal responsibility.
Social conservatism does not mean personal responsibility. It just simply is not true. Personal responsibility, like personal liberty, are not just non-partisan issues, but a-partisan issues. They simply are not ideas which are developed or motivated by any one area of the political spectrum. They are, however, abused and misrepresented by many areas of the political spectrum. Social conservatism is the idea that the government has the right and/or duty to enforce moral behaviors on its citizens, not merely to protect one another from harm but to promote tradition and moral order, however one defines that order. Personal responsibility is the idea that when a person engages in behavior, he or she is responsible for the effects of that behavior, legally and morally. The big difference is that morals are not laws. Morals and traditions, due to our Constitutional rights, do not have to be followed, so long as they do not break a law.
Logically, we have to decide then whether morals should be laws. In this country, the founders of the nation thought that the law should be designed to protect people from being harmed. Prisons are made to house those who have done harm, and civil suits can be filed for compensation; however, the legislation of taste is one of the things we are protected from in America. One ought not be prevented from acting because the action is distasteful, unpleasant or annoying, only directly, demonstrably harmful. That is true personal responsibility, not legislating some religious sect's preference.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Pragmatism v. Idealism
There has been a lot of talk lately about how great it will be for the next four years to have a pragmatist in the White House. Obama, the media loves to note, is a pragmatist, willing to cross the aisles to negotiate and be flexible enough to represent all the people. Why on earth would we want that?
If Obama is what I fear he is, a purely pragmatic, solution-obsessed politician, then an Obama administration has no principles. He will see an issue, discuss the possible uni-partisan answers, and come to an agreement which partly satisfies everyone. There is an extent to which that process is effective, but it only goes so far. Sometimes pragmatism is bad. Negotiating on issues of principle is impossible if one seemingly defers to pragmatism over principle. Obama does not appear to have any core issues with which he will not part, except a string of murky notions of hope and fairness. Where does he put his foot down? Even if I dislike the issue, I hope he can put aside practical solutions and be a man of principle. Indeed, it seems that we are going to go from an unflinching ideologue to an unflinching pragmatist.
The Lincoln comparisons with Obama have begun already, because Lincoln appointed a group of politicians with whom he was not particularly enamored to serve as his Cabinet. I find no fault in appointing those from differing political perspectives to positions on one's staff. Obviously, GroupThink is to be avoided in politics, but Obama has a strange fascination with Lincoln. Having dissenting opinions around one helps to knock out bad ideas and facilitates the molding of good ones. Every good leader knows that. As Matthew Pinsker notes, though, it did not work out too well for Lincoln.
Finally, there is the Union-stomping elephant in the room. Lincoln's Presidency has become a myth, much like Franklin Roosevelt's reign. Lincoln ruined the very nature of a voluntary union of states under a common law by forcing the Confederacy back into the United States. Putting the issue of slavery aside (and keeping it legal in states which did not secede), Lincoln declared a war to save the Union, but the 'Civil War' led to Lincoln maiming the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus, founded a state, imprisoned and killed civilians, did not support equal rights for blacks (at least not before deporting them), and so on. The excellent Tom DiLorenzo explains here.
Obama is like Lincoln in a few good ways, like his oratory and aims for unity. Let's hope he's not going to ignore the Constitution and strip states of even more of their rights.
If Obama is what I fear he is, a purely pragmatic, solution-obsessed politician, then an Obama administration has no principles. He will see an issue, discuss the possible uni-partisan answers, and come to an agreement which partly satisfies everyone. There is an extent to which that process is effective, but it only goes so far. Sometimes pragmatism is bad. Negotiating on issues of principle is impossible if one seemingly defers to pragmatism over principle. Obama does not appear to have any core issues with which he will not part, except a string of murky notions of hope and fairness. Where does he put his foot down? Even if I dislike the issue, I hope he can put aside practical solutions and be a man of principle. Indeed, it seems that we are going to go from an unflinching ideologue to an unflinching pragmatist.
The Lincoln comparisons with Obama have begun already, because Lincoln appointed a group of politicians with whom he was not particularly enamored to serve as his Cabinet. I find no fault in appointing those from differing political perspectives to positions on one's staff. Obviously, GroupThink is to be avoided in politics, but Obama has a strange fascination with Lincoln. Having dissenting opinions around one helps to knock out bad ideas and facilitates the molding of good ones. Every good leader knows that. As Matthew Pinsker notes, though, it did not work out too well for Lincoln.
Finally, there is the Union-stomping elephant in the room. Lincoln's Presidency has become a myth, much like Franklin Roosevelt's reign. Lincoln ruined the very nature of a voluntary union of states under a common law by forcing the Confederacy back into the United States. Putting the issue of slavery aside (and keeping it legal in states which did not secede), Lincoln declared a war to save the Union, but the 'Civil War' led to Lincoln maiming the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus, founded a state, imprisoned and killed civilians, did not support equal rights for blacks (at least not before deporting them), and so on. The excellent Tom DiLorenzo explains here.
Obama is like Lincoln in a few good ways, like his oratory and aims for unity. Let's hope he's not going to ignore the Constitution and strip states of even more of their rights.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Don't Fail Me, Cheeseheads
Here's an excerpt from an article in the New York Times:
Here is a good example of the dilemma facing many places where laws do not seem to deter behavior, and we once again find beer as the measuring stick: do we punish everyone (prohibition), or only the offenders? The fact that people drink, even heavily, and even with their children, is no doubt cause for concern on its own, but it is a moral, personal issue. The fact that Wisconsin's drunken driving-related death rate is highest in the country is another story. The article notes, however, that the AWARE group wants to "dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin." Raising AWAREness is one thing, but forcing people not to drink is another. In Wisconsin, it takes until the fifth DUI to be charged with a felony. Rather than giving 12.6 million taxpayer dollars to state agencies for "screening, intervention and referral services" why not simply punish those who break the already existing laws more?
The truth is that most people enjoy alcohol responsibly. That does not mean the "responsibly" promoted in beer promos. I read an article stating that in Australia more than four drinks in one sitting is "binge drinking." Blanket statements like that show little effort by researchers, and I think are attempts at demonizing drinkers. The way to prevent poor behavior is to punish it when it harms someone, not because you don't like it. So Cheeseheads, next time I'm in Wisconsin, drinks are on me.
Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve...People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.
Now some Wisconsin health officials and civic leaders are calling for the state to sober up. A coalition called All-Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education started a campaign last week to push for tougher drunken driving laws, an increase in screening for alcohol abuse at health clinics and a greater awareness of drinking problems generally.
Here is a good example of the dilemma facing many places where laws do not seem to deter behavior, and we once again find beer as the measuring stick: do we punish everyone (prohibition), or only the offenders? The fact that people drink, even heavily, and even with their children, is no doubt cause for concern on its own, but it is a moral, personal issue. The fact that Wisconsin's drunken driving-related death rate is highest in the country is another story. The article notes, however, that the AWARE group wants to "dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin." Raising AWAREness is one thing, but forcing people not to drink is another. In Wisconsin, it takes until the fifth DUI to be charged with a felony. Rather than giving 12.6 million taxpayer dollars to state agencies for "screening, intervention and referral services" why not simply punish those who break the already existing laws more?
The truth is that most people enjoy alcohol responsibly. That does not mean the "responsibly" promoted in beer promos. I read an article stating that in Australia more than four drinks in one sitting is "binge drinking." Blanket statements like that show little effort by researchers, and I think are attempts at demonizing drinkers. The way to prevent poor behavior is to punish it when it harms someone, not because you don't like it. So Cheeseheads, next time I'm in Wisconsin, drinks are on me.
Bailout Redux
Well, it did not take long. The automakers are lined up like they're in Oliver Twist, asking for more food. They all saw Wall Street bailed out, and now they believe it is their turn. Some lawmakers want the bailout for the auto industry to come out of the bazillion dollar bailout from earlier this year, and some want it to be a separate loan with certain rules. Not surprisingly, the change we can believe in is that there is not change: there is near-consensus on Capitol Hill that we need to do it, and near-consensus throughout America that we are getting hosed.
GM is begging so obviously for free money (after all, they only have $16B cash on hand), that CNN wrote this: GM executives say the $25 billion loan money would come with enough strings attached to it that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis. That's right: getting money they did not earn from taxpayers who may not use their goods cannot have strings attached. It's gotta be free and clear, or GM is not happy. The truth is GM and the other American automakers are going under unless they drastically change their business practices. A blank check is no incentive to do so.
The National Taxpayers Union has an open letter to Congress, which I'm sure will not be read, let alone considered, by nearly all of Congress. In the letter, they make some great points. First, those not working for the "Big 3" in the American auto industry make only 65% on average compared to those working for the American companies. A sound business model, for sure. Next, they say this:
Couldn't put it much better.
While I'm at it, here is another good read on the issue:
Bailout to Nowhere by David Brooks Brooks supported the original bailout package, but at least he puts his foot down, albeit too late. He makes an argument against the auto bailout which many made against the financial one: when does it end?
GM is begging so obviously for free money (after all, they only have $16B cash on hand), that CNN wrote this: GM executives say the $25 billion loan money would come with enough strings attached to it that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis. That's right: getting money they did not earn from taxpayers who may not use their goods cannot have strings attached. It's gotta be free and clear, or GM is not happy. The truth is GM and the other American automakers are going under unless they drastically change their business practices. A blank check is no incentive to do so.
The National Taxpayers Union has an open letter to Congress, which I'm sure will not be read, let alone considered, by nearly all of Congress. In the letter, they make some great points. First, those not working for the "Big 3" in the American auto industry make only 65% on average compared to those working for the American companies. A sound business model, for sure. Next, they say this:
Most Americans recognize that risk is a fundamental element of our economy. Some businesses succeed tremendously, some fail spectacularly. But they should do so at their own risk, not with the unwilling backing of millions of citizens' paychecks. It is little wonder so many American taxpayers feel that Congress is not looking out for them.
Couldn't put it much better.
While I'm at it, here is another good read on the issue:
Bailout to Nowhere by David Brooks Brooks supported the original bailout package, but at least he puts his foot down, albeit too late. He makes an argument against the auto bailout which many made against the financial one: when does it end?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Some interesting links
I am a bit behind on my blog posts this week, and in the interim I thought I'd post some very thought provoking links I came across in my reading this past month.
This first link is to an article by George Will in the Washington Post entitled "'Socialism'? It's already here." Published on Nov. 16th, I think the article ties in nicely with some of the points I made in "The Real Change We Need, Part I" about the similarities between the parties and the hypocrisy of John McCain decrying Obama's so-called socialism, while endorsing it when it comes from the Bush White House. Anyway, definitely worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html
The three links posted below all deal with the book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf. I had not heard of the book until recently, and in my search for more information on it, I came across some interviews that the author gave on the topic. The interviews on YouTube are from last year, while the one given to the A.V. Club is from November 3rd of this year. The videos and article were eye-opening, to say the least, with Wolf comparing the actions of the Bush administration in the last several years to those undertaken by historical fascist and dictatorial movements across the globe; the similarities are very disconcerting. Both YouTube videos go over basically the same information, but they are both worth a watch. Keep an ear open at the end of the first video for what she says about 'candidates supporting the Constitution.' The A.V. Club interview obviously is a more recent take on things. So here are the links:
This next link is to an article in the Boston Globe which is also older (from 2006), but worth a read nonetheless. It is entitled "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" and discusses the President's use of signing statements. Here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
After those fairly disconcerting articles and interviews, I thought I'd leave you with something a little lighter. It is another article from Mr. Will, this time about how drinking alcohol may have exerted a selection pressure on the human race; certainly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901934.html
Anyway, enjoy -
Romo
This first link is to an article by George Will in the Washington Post entitled "'Socialism'? It's already here." Published on Nov. 16th, I think the article ties in nicely with some of the points I made in "The Real Change We Need, Part I" about the similarities between the parties and the hypocrisy of John McCain decrying Obama's so-called socialism, while endorsing it when it comes from the Bush White House. Anyway, definitely worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html
The three links posted below all deal with the book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf. I had not heard of the book until recently, and in my search for more information on it, I came across some interviews that the author gave on the topic. The interviews on YouTube are from last year, while the one given to the A.V. Club is from November 3rd of this year. The videos and article were eye-opening, to say the least, with Wolf comparing the actions of the Bush administration in the last several years to those undertaken by historical fascist and dictatorial movements across the globe; the similarities are very disconcerting. Both YouTube videos go over basically the same information, but they are both worth a watch. Keep an ear open at the end of the first video for what she says about 'candidates supporting the Constitution.' The A.V. Club interview obviously is a more recent take on things. So here are the links:
First YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Second YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
A.V. Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/naomi_wolf/1
Second YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
A.V. Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/naomi_wolf/1
This next link is to an article in the Boston Globe which is also older (from 2006), but worth a read nonetheless. It is entitled "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" and discusses the President's use of signing statements. Here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
After those fairly disconcerting articles and interviews, I thought I'd leave you with something a little lighter. It is another article from Mr. Will, this time about how drinking alcohol may have exerted a selection pressure on the human race; certainly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901934.html
Anyway, enjoy -
Romo
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veterans' Day
It is Veterans’ Day again, a time when we recognize those who have served our country and defended our borders. Many people claim that the men and women in our armed services fight to protect “our freedom(s)”. The phrase has been commandeered by statists and military apologists recently, to the detriment of those who do serve bravely. Beside failing to make the leap from protecting our freedom to forcibly spreading ‘democracy’ (read: rule by a party or cartel of parties of which the current American administration approves) around the world, those on the left and the right ignore the “freedoms” they do not like or would prefer not to confront.
One such right came up this election cycle when it was reported that Gov. Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd, allegedly had been a member of an Alaskan secessionist party. The party was decried in the media, especially on the left, and the word ‘secessionist’ was derided with a contemptuous sneer each time the issue arose. The very mention of ‘secession’ was mocked, when the real problem with the Alaskan Independence Party is that the party’s founder was a violent secessionists, promoting secession specifically through armed revolt. Peaceable secession is nothing to be mocked. In fact, it is the basis of our society. The party now claims that a referendum on Alaskan independence would be accepted by its members, regardless of the result. That sounds much more like reasonable discourse on the legitimacy of our government than a group of crazy, gun-toting Yosemite Sams in snowshoes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote prodigiously on the issue of the “consent of the governed,” which even appears in the Declaration of Independence, America’s own secessionist document. How can a secular state, which has no Divine Right or other external claims to legitimacy, not recognize that the people are allowed, and even obligated, to change or disband their government when it no longer serves the people? Without the people the government does not exist; as Jefferson writes, it is the people “to whom all authority belongs.”
Zogby put out a poll in July which found that 22% of Americans think peaceable secession is a right for states or regions. Of those polled, fewer said they would support such a movement, which is a great sign that people are thinking about the issue rationally, as showing support for a right which one does not personally advocate displays empathy, logic and fairness. Interestingly, 44% of those polled felt that the United States governmental system is broken and cannot be fixed by two-parties and elections. If the last point is not a clear indication that the American people are becoming aware that the two parties have an alliance to protect their power, I’m afraid we’ll never have one.
In all, secession is not likely, whether by a state, like Alaska or California, or a region, as the case of Jefferson, a proposed state consisting of parts of Oregon and northern California; however, the right to do so is pre-American, and every veteran who has fought to preserve the rights of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and spirit of America has done so to protect that ability as well.
EDIT: here's an article from lewrockwell.com on changes they'd like to see over there.
One such right came up this election cycle when it was reported that Gov. Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd, allegedly had been a member of an Alaskan secessionist party. The party was decried in the media, especially on the left, and the word ‘secessionist’ was derided with a contemptuous sneer each time the issue arose. The very mention of ‘secession’ was mocked, when the real problem with the Alaskan Independence Party is that the party’s founder was a violent secessionists, promoting secession specifically through armed revolt. Peaceable secession is nothing to be mocked. In fact, it is the basis of our society. The party now claims that a referendum on Alaskan independence would be accepted by its members, regardless of the result. That sounds much more like reasonable discourse on the legitimacy of our government than a group of crazy, gun-toting Yosemite Sams in snowshoes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote prodigiously on the issue of the “consent of the governed,” which even appears in the Declaration of Independence, America’s own secessionist document. How can a secular state, which has no Divine Right or other external claims to legitimacy, not recognize that the people are allowed, and even obligated, to change or disband their government when it no longer serves the people? Without the people the government does not exist; as Jefferson writes, it is the people “to whom all authority belongs.”
Zogby put out a poll in July which found that 22% of Americans think peaceable secession is a right for states or regions. Of those polled, fewer said they would support such a movement, which is a great sign that people are thinking about the issue rationally, as showing support for a right which one does not personally advocate displays empathy, logic and fairness. Interestingly, 44% of those polled felt that the United States governmental system is broken and cannot be fixed by two-parties and elections. If the last point is not a clear indication that the American people are becoming aware that the two parties have an alliance to protect their power, I’m afraid we’ll never have one.
In all, secession is not likely, whether by a state, like Alaska or California, or a region, as the case of Jefferson, a proposed state consisting of parts of Oregon and northern California; however, the right to do so is pre-American, and every veteran who has fought to preserve the rights of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and spirit of America has done so to protect that ability as well.
EDIT: here's an article from lewrockwell.com on changes they'd like to see over there.
Where do our rights come from?
In every country, in every treatise, in every essay and every thought on human freedom, the question emerges: where do our rights come from? Each time you watch television in America and the host of the program refers to the right of free speech, or the right to bear arms, he or she assumes the origin of those rights, which are spelled out in the Constitution and its Amendments. In the United Nations Charter, every person on earth is guaranteed “life, liberty and security of person” by signatories of the Charter. Most famously, John Locke declared more aptly that humans are all entitled to life, liberty and property. Regardless, one must examine the root of all these thoughts before determining where rights come from.
One very common claim, especially in the United States, is that God secures our rights. Unfortunately, there is no sound proof that there is a God, let alone that he grants us rights. Beside not clearly stating what our rights are, he also conveniently leaves it to us to enforce them. Men violate rights which are guaranteed by some religions, but not others. Even in states where God’s laws rule, like Sharia in some Muslim nations, violations can occur and go unpunished. Finally, we can and do create rights without any deity’s sanction, and in fact America’s separation of church and state requires that we do so to protect those who do not defer to the Almighty. Since there is no way to either adequately discern or enforce any human rights God may endorse, we must remove them from discussion of where our legal rights as American citizens derive.
Another common argument, also seen from early in American political discourse, is the idea of natural rights. Having natural rights implies that simply being born a human being guarantees that we are endowed with special privileges and ‘inalienable’ qualities; however, what rights of nature cannot be violated? Which rights are guaranteed? Certainly an American in Yosemite alone for a week is not protected by natural rights from starving, drowning or being eaten or mauled. Even the idea of justice has no bearing on the natural world, as revenge, retribution and punishment are essentially unknown to any animal but man. Why, then, do we claim that rights are natural?
The truth, then, is that we made rights up. Humans created rights. They are a product of our sense of obligation, of right and wrong, of preference. The law of man is violable, though, just as the laws of a god are. Erase the law, and you erase the right. Laws are dangerous: they are subjective, opinionated, biased in every way. None of our rights exist a priori, and none are guaranteed, except by collectively enforcing them.
One very common claim, especially in the United States, is that God secures our rights. Unfortunately, there is no sound proof that there is a God, let alone that he grants us rights. Beside not clearly stating what our rights are, he also conveniently leaves it to us to enforce them. Men violate rights which are guaranteed by some religions, but not others. Even in states where God’s laws rule, like Sharia in some Muslim nations, violations can occur and go unpunished. Finally, we can and do create rights without any deity’s sanction, and in fact America’s separation of church and state requires that we do so to protect those who do not defer to the Almighty. Since there is no way to either adequately discern or enforce any human rights God may endorse, we must remove them from discussion of where our legal rights as American citizens derive.
Another common argument, also seen from early in American political discourse, is the idea of natural rights. Having natural rights implies that simply being born a human being guarantees that we are endowed with special privileges and ‘inalienable’ qualities; however, what rights of nature cannot be violated? Which rights are guaranteed? Certainly an American in Yosemite alone for a week is not protected by natural rights from starving, drowning or being eaten or mauled. Even the idea of justice has no bearing on the natural world, as revenge, retribution and punishment are essentially unknown to any animal but man. Why, then, do we claim that rights are natural?
The truth, then, is that we made rights up. Humans created rights. They are a product of our sense of obligation, of right and wrong, of preference. The law of man is violable, though, just as the laws of a god are. Erase the law, and you erase the right. Laws are dangerous: they are subjective, opinionated, biased in every way. None of our rights exist a priori, and none are guaranteed, except by collectively enforcing them.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Real Change We Need, Part II
by Romo
The election is over, and we have, at least in the most basic sense of the word, ‘change’: a new president-elect. President Obama will certainly be a welcome difference from President Bush, but this essay series will not concern itself with the benefits or disadvantages of having one particular chief executive over another. Instead, as with last week’s article, this essay will deal with important changes that America can undertake to improve itself, and in the spirit of the recent election, the topics for this week will be voter registration, disenfranchisement, and the Electoral College.
The 2008 presidential election is on pace to have had the highest voter turnout since 1968, with an estimated 62.5 percent of those eligible casting ballots, although the exact numbers of votes cast has yet to be determined. Still, this most recent election could be the new benchmark for voter turnout in the United States. And yet, 62.5 percent is a fairly low turnout. Not even three quarters of those eligible voted in what many have argued was the most important election in our lifetimes. For this important an election, to decided what set of ideas will govern the nation for the next four years, one would expect a much higher turnout. Perhaps due to laziness or apathy, however, American voter turnout rates have been sliding for many years. To my mind, there are several ways to remedy the situation, and one method would be to make voter registration easier.
At the moment, the process of registration itself is a deterrent to voting for many citizens. Whether they forget to register, or simply do not have the time to do so, either way the process is an extra hassle that can prevent eligible citizens from exercising their rights, especially since many states require people to be registered far earlier than the actual election. Ostensibly, this time delay is to prevent voter fraud, but there has been no evidence of any increase in voter fraud in the six states that allow same-day election registration, or in North Dakota, which does not register voters at all. Several of these states rank among the highest in voter turnout in the entire country. (As an aside, I took the above information from an article on voter registration in the Gotham Gazette from 2001. While the article is a bit old, it makes all the points I was looking to touch on when I began writing this essay, and I definitely think it is worth a read.) Academic studies, such as Controversies in Voting Behavior, by Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, support the assertion that simplified or non-existent voter registration processes significantly increase turnout. I would argue that in light of this data, the states should move to allow same-day voter registration, allowing the voting process to be reduced down to one step. If people knew that they could simply walk into a polling station, present identification, and vote, without having to register weeks or months before an election, I am sure the United States would see a decent increase in voter turnout. Of course, as a recent BBC News article points out, a significant increase in voter turnout would bring with it its own problems. With some states using old or malfunctioning voting machines, and staffing problems, we are very lucky that even with this election’s mild increase in turnout, there were no devastating problems.
Voter registration is important, but it is not the only place where the United States needs to modify existing election laws. One issue that needs to be dealt with is that of disenfranchisement. As I see it, there are two major groups of people currently disenfranchised in one way or another. The first are convicted felons. According to a 1998 report by the Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project entitled Losing the Vote, 3.9 million felons were disenfranchised, with forty-six states denying the vote to imprisoned felons, thirty-two denying it to those on parole, and twenty-nine disenfranchising those on probation. Additionally, several states have laws on the books that deny felons the vote for life. In the ten years since then, the number of those disenfranchised has surely increased. Now, one might argue that in committing a felony, a person has shown not only disrespect and disregard for the laws of the land, but ill intent toward our society and nation. I am not going to argue against this belief or the logic of the argument; however, our Constitution appears to protect even felons’ rights. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Regardless of what it says after, the second clause of the amendment clearly says that no state can abridge the natural rights of American citizens; there is no distinction made between felons and law-abiding citizens, nor any other subdivision of the American people. Every citizen is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” according to the Declaration of Independence, and to me, the Fourteenth Amendment declares that these rights cannot be taken away; thus, as I read the Constitution, felony disenfranchisement is simply unconstitutional. Whether or not it goes against your beliefs, our own law states that this disenfranchisement is wrong.
The other major group of disenfranchised is the 588,292 people who live in our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. Although the citizens of D.C. can vote in presidential elections, thanks to the Twenty-Third Amendment, they have limited control over their own affairs. The area is completely under federal control, and while at the moment the district has a mayor and council to run things, the final authority still resides with Congress, and D.C. only has a non-voting delegate to the House; the area has no true representation. Some have argued that the district was never intended by the authors of the Constitution to have representation; others have argued that it does not deserve it since Congressional representation should be reserved for the states. (Personally, I do not agree with either statement, but for the sake of space I will not tackle those issues here . Interested parties are welcome to explore the topic themselves, and the Wikipedia article linked here is an excellent place to start. Additionally, DCVote.org has a wealth of information on the topic.) Really, though, I believe Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) put it best: “It’s hard to make a straight-faced argument that the capital of the free world shouldn’t have a vote in Congress.”
There have been several attempts to give the district some Congressional representation, one of the more promising being pushed by Rep. Davis in 2007. The D.C. Voting Rights Act had to jump through a variety of political hoops in order to even give the district an outside chance of gaining representation, and fell just short of reaching the Senate floor for a debate. The bill was intended to give Washington, D.C. a full Representative in the House; not much, but still something. However, due to the area being a renowned Democratic stronghold, the supporters of the bill had to include something to appease Republicans; thus it included provisions for giving Utah an extra House seat, having just missed gaining one in the last census. Of course, the Democrats did not want to lose their single seat in Utah due to redistricting, and the new seat was thus intended to be at-large. You’d think that by now everyone could agree on the bill. However, some in Congress raised valid points about the Constitutionality of at-large districts, claiming this type of representation violated the ‘one man-one vote’ rule. Somehow the bill managed to navigate these political hurdles, passing through the House, but as stated above, it did not reach the Senate floor. Had it passed in the Senate, supporters would still have had to convince President Bush, who had explicitly stated that he was against giving D.C. representation, not to veto the bill. While a nation-wide poll indicated that 82 percent of American citizens, on both sides of the aisle, wanted D.C. to gain representation, politics complicated and stalled the process. This is a black eye for America; in the so-called leader of the free world, the supposed paragon of democracy, the two major political parties cannot see beyond their own selfish ends and find a way to give a Congressional voice to over 500,000 of its citizens. If for no other reason, those in D.C. deserve a vote at least to eliminate the hypocrisy of demanding democracy abroad and denying it at home.
The idea of the United States being a democracy brings us to the next and final topic: that of the Electoral College. Most Americans should have at least an idea of what it is; if for no other reason than having watched CNN anxiously count the amount of electoral votes both candidates gained during the election. For those who don’t know, however, I will offer a brief overview. The Electoral College is what actually selects our next president. Each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of Senators and Representatives it has in Congress. Washington, D.C. gets three electors due to the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well. When the electors meet, which will be in December this year, each one casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to win, a candidate must have a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538, at the moment). In general, the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a particular state wins the entirety of that state’s electors. Sounds fair, right? The people vote, and the electors then base their votes on ours. Unfortunately, there are some problems inherent in the system. The first, and most dangerous problem is that electors do not have to vote the same way that the people did in the popular vote. While a rare occurrence, electors can choose vote for other candidates or abstain.
A second problem is that it does not actually matter how many people vote in the popular election. If only one person was to vote in California, the winning candidate there would still gain all 55 electoral votes the state possesses. The winner-take-all system set up in almost all states discourages the projected losing party’s supporters from turning out, as there is rarely spitting of the electoral vote. Thus the losing party’s votes do not count in most states. In some instances, this has resulted in the candidate who lost the popular vote still winning the election, most notably in 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, despite Gore winning the popular vote. Could you imagine how different the last eight years might have been if the popular vote had determined the winner of the election?
A related problem is that the Electoral College skews the results of the election. In this recent election, Barak Obama defeated John McCain 364 electoral votes to 162 (Missouri was split evenly and not included in this tally) ; Senator Obama won 69 percent of the electoral votes this election. One would naturally assume this to be a ‘mandate from the people,’ unless they looked at the popular vote tallies: Senator Obama only won 52.6 percent of the popular vote, while Senator McCain won 46.1 percent; a much closer race. To compare, Barak Obama won by 38 percent of the electoral vote, and 6.5 percent of the popular vote. Clearly, the Electoral College does not accurately reflect the will of the people.
Another glaring defect is that because the Electoral College moots the amount of people who turn out to vote, candidates only focus on winning swing states, and barely campaign in traditional Republican or Democratic strongholds. If you were to compare the amount of money and time a candidate spent in Pennsylvania compared to Wyoming, or even New Jersey, for example, I think many people would be shocked. There is no incentive to mobilize residents of traditional strongholds to vote, since the popular vote tallies do not matter, only the percentages do. There is, however, an incentive to mobilize voters in swing states since they could go either way, and whoever wins these states scoops up all their electoral votes. Thus swing states get a disproportionate amount of money spent on them, see much more focused campaigning from the candidates, and wield greater power in determining the outcome of the election than other states. I believe it is obvious that the Electoral College is a terrible system, and moving to a direct popular vote would eliminate the problems listed above and give true power to the people; moving us closer to being an actual democracy. Voter turnout overall might increase, as well, since popular vote tallies would really count for something. America has always claimed to have a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ so why not improve the system so we really have one?
But why does it even matter if the citizenry of the United States bother to vote? Or can? Or if those votes really matter? If those in power could be trusted to act in our own best interests, then it would not make a difference if anyone voted. But inherent in democracies (or republics, like our nation) is the tacit acknowledgement that those in power must be watched and taken to task when they begin to act in autocratic, abusive fashions. The responsibility falls to the people of America to prevent the return of King George, or worse yet, Big Brother, in whatever guise he may come. But more than that, the founding fathers, the men who penned our great documents and fought at the birth of our nation, meant for this nation to be ruled by the people, and when we shirk this responsibility, when we abandon our duty, we leave the door open for ever more corruption and abuse, for more illegal NSA wiretaps, for further suspensions of habeas corpus, for the gradual eroding of our liberties until we have none left. If we do not even vote, why would anyone expect us to stand up for our rights? And if we don’t stand up for our rights, who will?
Thanks for reading, and any questions, comments, corrections or complaints can be posted here or emailed to the author at romo1227@gmail.com
The election is over, and we have, at least in the most basic sense of the word, ‘change’: a new president-elect. President Obama will certainly be a welcome difference from President Bush, but this essay series will not concern itself with the benefits or disadvantages of having one particular chief executive over another. Instead, as with last week’s article, this essay will deal with important changes that America can undertake to improve itself, and in the spirit of the recent election, the topics for this week will be voter registration, disenfranchisement, and the Electoral College.
The 2008 presidential election is on pace to have had the highest voter turnout since 1968, with an estimated 62.5 percent of those eligible casting ballots, although the exact numbers of votes cast has yet to be determined. Still, this most recent election could be the new benchmark for voter turnout in the United States. And yet, 62.5 percent is a fairly low turnout. Not even three quarters of those eligible voted in what many have argued was the most important election in our lifetimes. For this important an election, to decided what set of ideas will govern the nation for the next four years, one would expect a much higher turnout. Perhaps due to laziness or apathy, however, American voter turnout rates have been sliding for many years. To my mind, there are several ways to remedy the situation, and one method would be to make voter registration easier.
At the moment, the process of registration itself is a deterrent to voting for many citizens. Whether they forget to register, or simply do not have the time to do so, either way the process is an extra hassle that can prevent eligible citizens from exercising their rights, especially since many states require people to be registered far earlier than the actual election. Ostensibly, this time delay is to prevent voter fraud, but there has been no evidence of any increase in voter fraud in the six states that allow same-day election registration, or in North Dakota, which does not register voters at all. Several of these states rank among the highest in voter turnout in the entire country. (As an aside, I took the above information from an article on voter registration in the Gotham Gazette from 2001. While the article is a bit old, it makes all the points I was looking to touch on when I began writing this essay, and I definitely think it is worth a read.) Academic studies, such as Controversies in Voting Behavior, by Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, support the assertion that simplified or non-existent voter registration processes significantly increase turnout. I would argue that in light of this data, the states should move to allow same-day voter registration, allowing the voting process to be reduced down to one step. If people knew that they could simply walk into a polling station, present identification, and vote, without having to register weeks or months before an election, I am sure the United States would see a decent increase in voter turnout. Of course, as a recent BBC News article points out, a significant increase in voter turnout would bring with it its own problems. With some states using old or malfunctioning voting machines, and staffing problems, we are very lucky that even with this election’s mild increase in turnout, there were no devastating problems.
Voter registration is important, but it is not the only place where the United States needs to modify existing election laws. One issue that needs to be dealt with is that of disenfranchisement. As I see it, there are two major groups of people currently disenfranchised in one way or another. The first are convicted felons. According to a 1998 report by the Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project entitled Losing the Vote, 3.9 million felons were disenfranchised, with forty-six states denying the vote to imprisoned felons, thirty-two denying it to those on parole, and twenty-nine disenfranchising those on probation. Additionally, several states have laws on the books that deny felons the vote for life. In the ten years since then, the number of those disenfranchised has surely increased. Now, one might argue that in committing a felony, a person has shown not only disrespect and disregard for the laws of the land, but ill intent toward our society and nation. I am not going to argue against this belief or the logic of the argument; however, our Constitution appears to protect even felons’ rights. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Regardless of what it says after, the second clause of the amendment clearly says that no state can abridge the natural rights of American citizens; there is no distinction made between felons and law-abiding citizens, nor any other subdivision of the American people. Every citizen is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” according to the Declaration of Independence, and to me, the Fourteenth Amendment declares that these rights cannot be taken away; thus, as I read the Constitution, felony disenfranchisement is simply unconstitutional. Whether or not it goes against your beliefs, our own law states that this disenfranchisement is wrong.
The other major group of disenfranchised is the 588,292 people who live in our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. Although the citizens of D.C. can vote in presidential elections, thanks to the Twenty-Third Amendment, they have limited control over their own affairs. The area is completely under federal control, and while at the moment the district has a mayor and council to run things, the final authority still resides with Congress, and D.C. only has a non-voting delegate to the House; the area has no true representation. Some have argued that the district was never intended by the authors of the Constitution to have representation; others have argued that it does not deserve it since Congressional representation should be reserved for the states. (Personally, I do not agree with either statement, but for the sake of space I will not tackle those issues here . Interested parties are welcome to explore the topic themselves, and the Wikipedia article linked here is an excellent place to start. Additionally, DCVote.org has a wealth of information on the topic.) Really, though, I believe Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) put it best: “It’s hard to make a straight-faced argument that the capital of the free world shouldn’t have a vote in Congress.”
There have been several attempts to give the district some Congressional representation, one of the more promising being pushed by Rep. Davis in 2007. The D.C. Voting Rights Act had to jump through a variety of political hoops in order to even give the district an outside chance of gaining representation, and fell just short of reaching the Senate floor for a debate. The bill was intended to give Washington, D.C. a full Representative in the House; not much, but still something. However, due to the area being a renowned Democratic stronghold, the supporters of the bill had to include something to appease Republicans; thus it included provisions for giving Utah an extra House seat, having just missed gaining one in the last census. Of course, the Democrats did not want to lose their single seat in Utah due to redistricting, and the new seat was thus intended to be at-large. You’d think that by now everyone could agree on the bill. However, some in Congress raised valid points about the Constitutionality of at-large districts, claiming this type of representation violated the ‘one man-one vote’ rule. Somehow the bill managed to navigate these political hurdles, passing through the House, but as stated above, it did not reach the Senate floor. Had it passed in the Senate, supporters would still have had to convince President Bush, who had explicitly stated that he was against giving D.C. representation, not to veto the bill. While a nation-wide poll indicated that 82 percent of American citizens, on both sides of the aisle, wanted D.C. to gain representation, politics complicated and stalled the process. This is a black eye for America; in the so-called leader of the free world, the supposed paragon of democracy, the two major political parties cannot see beyond their own selfish ends and find a way to give a Congressional voice to over 500,000 of its citizens. If for no other reason, those in D.C. deserve a vote at least to eliminate the hypocrisy of demanding democracy abroad and denying it at home.
The idea of the United States being a democracy brings us to the next and final topic: that of the Electoral College. Most Americans should have at least an idea of what it is; if for no other reason than having watched CNN anxiously count the amount of electoral votes both candidates gained during the election. For those who don’t know, however, I will offer a brief overview. The Electoral College is what actually selects our next president. Each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of Senators and Representatives it has in Congress. Washington, D.C. gets three electors due to the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well. When the electors meet, which will be in December this year, each one casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to win, a candidate must have a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538, at the moment). In general, the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a particular state wins the entirety of that state’s electors. Sounds fair, right? The people vote, and the electors then base their votes on ours. Unfortunately, there are some problems inherent in the system. The first, and most dangerous problem is that electors do not have to vote the same way that the people did in the popular vote. While a rare occurrence, electors can choose vote for other candidates or abstain.
A second problem is that it does not actually matter how many people vote in the popular election. If only one person was to vote in California, the winning candidate there would still gain all 55 electoral votes the state possesses. The winner-take-all system set up in almost all states discourages the projected losing party’s supporters from turning out, as there is rarely spitting of the electoral vote. Thus the losing party’s votes do not count in most states. In some instances, this has resulted in the candidate who lost the popular vote still winning the election, most notably in 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, despite Gore winning the popular vote. Could you imagine how different the last eight years might have been if the popular vote had determined the winner of the election?
A related problem is that the Electoral College skews the results of the election. In this recent election, Barak Obama defeated John McCain 364 electoral votes to 162 (Missouri was split evenly and not included in this tally) ; Senator Obama won 69 percent of the electoral votes this election. One would naturally assume this to be a ‘mandate from the people,’ unless they looked at the popular vote tallies: Senator Obama only won 52.6 percent of the popular vote, while Senator McCain won 46.1 percent; a much closer race. To compare, Barak Obama won by 38 percent of the electoral vote, and 6.5 percent of the popular vote. Clearly, the Electoral College does not accurately reflect the will of the people.
Another glaring defect is that because the Electoral College moots the amount of people who turn out to vote, candidates only focus on winning swing states, and barely campaign in traditional Republican or Democratic strongholds. If you were to compare the amount of money and time a candidate spent in Pennsylvania compared to Wyoming, or even New Jersey, for example, I think many people would be shocked. There is no incentive to mobilize residents of traditional strongholds to vote, since the popular vote tallies do not matter, only the percentages do. There is, however, an incentive to mobilize voters in swing states since they could go either way, and whoever wins these states scoops up all their electoral votes. Thus swing states get a disproportionate amount of money spent on them, see much more focused campaigning from the candidates, and wield greater power in determining the outcome of the election than other states. I believe it is obvious that the Electoral College is a terrible system, and moving to a direct popular vote would eliminate the problems listed above and give true power to the people; moving us closer to being an actual democracy. Voter turnout overall might increase, as well, since popular vote tallies would really count for something. America has always claimed to have a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ so why not improve the system so we really have one?
But why does it even matter if the citizenry of the United States bother to vote? Or can? Or if those votes really matter? If those in power could be trusted to act in our own best interests, then it would not make a difference if anyone voted. But inherent in democracies (or republics, like our nation) is the tacit acknowledgement that those in power must be watched and taken to task when they begin to act in autocratic, abusive fashions. The responsibility falls to the people of America to prevent the return of King George, or worse yet, Big Brother, in whatever guise he may come. But more than that, the founding fathers, the men who penned our great documents and fought at the birth of our nation, meant for this nation to be ruled by the people, and when we shirk this responsibility, when we abandon our duty, we leave the door open for ever more corruption and abuse, for more illegal NSA wiretaps, for further suspensions of habeas corpus, for the gradual eroding of our liberties until we have none left. If we do not even vote, why would anyone expect us to stand up for our rights? And if we don’t stand up for our rights, who will?
Thanks for reading, and any questions, comments, corrections or complaints can be posted here or emailed to the author at romo1227@gmail.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Obama Win.
The Obama win last night was impressive. The speech was moving. The reaction was...well, scary. There's something about throngs of people wildly chanting and yelling that frightens me. I was scared at the Republican Convention for the same reason. The "U.S.A.!" chants to suppress protesters and the church-like "Yes, we can!" responses to Obama have a strange parallel.
I understand the historical importance of an Obama win. A black man, a single-parent home, a self-made man. All of those things are important. Let's not, though, forget that he is green, a product of a corrupt Chicago Democratic regime which has had a stranglehold on local politics for decades, and has no foreign policy experience while entering into an economic mess and geopolitical frightfest. There's an interesting article from Newsweek about taxing the rich, many of whom are losing their jobs and investments along with the rest of us.
The truth is, Obama will be a mixed bag. What he offers in hope for the lower class, tax breaks for the poor and some redeemed esteem of America in the eyes of Europe will be hindered by a tax plan which is exactly what the country doesn't need in a tough time. We need a spending slash. An immense one. Ending the Iraq War will not be enough, especially if many of those funds are simply transferred into Afghanistan.
The Daily Kosaccurately pointed out that the "liberal agenda" is winning some social battles, but losing others. Race and abortion are fast becoming old news. We can elect leaders of any race: white, black, Indian-American, Asian, you-name-it. Unfortunately, gay rights and immigration are becoming the new battlegrounds for social change. I still think if gay people would just start a "United Gay Church of Christ" all of their legal problems would evaporate.
I understand the historical importance of an Obama win. A black man, a single-parent home, a self-made man. All of those things are important. Let's not, though, forget that he is green, a product of a corrupt Chicago Democratic regime which has had a stranglehold on local politics for decades, and has no foreign policy experience while entering into an economic mess and geopolitical frightfest. There's an interesting article from Newsweek about taxing the rich, many of whom are losing their jobs and investments along with the rest of us.
The truth is, Obama will be a mixed bag. What he offers in hope for the lower class, tax breaks for the poor and some redeemed esteem of America in the eyes of Europe will be hindered by a tax plan which is exactly what the country doesn't need in a tough time. We need a spending slash. An immense one. Ending the Iraq War will not be enough, especially if many of those funds are simply transferred into Afghanistan.
The Daily Kosaccurately pointed out that the "liberal agenda" is winning some social battles, but losing others. Race and abortion are fast becoming old news. We can elect leaders of any race: white, black, Indian-American, Asian, you-name-it. Unfortunately, gay rights and immigration are becoming the new battlegrounds for social change. I still think if gay people would just start a "United Gay Church of Christ" all of their legal problems would evaporate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)