The Contract Part I
As per some suggestions in the comments over the weekend, I thought I’d take a close look at the Tea-People’s Contract From America, also known as the “We the People Need a Preposition Contract.” You can imagine the workshopping and the focus groups. “Contract to America?” “Contract of America?” “How about ‘Contract Under America?” I had intended to do this in one mighty post, but I’ve had to deal with two issues, one a complete hard-drive meltdown, which has slowed me up by about 24 hours, and two, a loved one in the hospital. As such, I’m going to break things up, starting with the first two action items in the Contract Versus America, or Contract Beyond America, or whatever.
1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
This is a spectacularly bad idea. It’s not the way the Constitution works now or has ever worked, nor is it a smart way to expect it to work. This point was settled waaaaay back by John Marshall in McCullouch v. Maryland. First, as the Jeffersonian John Taylor of Carolina observed, not at all approvingly, the Constitution gives the Congress limited ends but unlimited means. This was nicely summed up by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. What are the implications of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution? Chief Justice Marshall said, “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
In other words, although the Constitution doesn’t say anything about Congress creating a Federal Bureau for Fighting Rabid Alien Space Dogs in the event that we are attacked by drooling interstellar canines, it is within its means to do so consistent with its overall powers. The Constitution ain’t a catalog. If it mentioned every damn thing a government might be expected to do, it would have been totally incoherent. If the government was limited to what was mentioned in the document, the Constitution, brittle and inflexible, would long ago have been rendered antiquated and useless. Especially because of the whole being helpless against rabid alien space-dogs thing.
2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.
Regarding all of the assertions above, prove them. And please, spare me the comebacks in the comments this time around unless you have a source that’s not bought and paid for. Global warming is settled science at this point, sorry to say. It takes a special kind of short-sightedness for a group whose web site shows a picture of a little girl holding up a sign that says “Stop Spending My Future” to be in denial about a potential catastrophe so great that said little girl will not have a future to live in.
Even were you less than sure, it pays to be careful and proactive.
And with that I am off to the hospital. More later.
April 19th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Protecting the Constitution is a “spectacularly bad idea?” I don’t recall hearing this viewpoint during the eight years of Bush’s presidency, when protecting the Constitution was a foremost concern of enlightened liberals everywhere.
If I understand this new viewpoint, congress now has virtually unlimited power through the “general welfare” and “necessary and proper” clauses to do whatever they please. Something tells me that is not what the framers had in mind when they devised a simple system of checks and balances that would ensure limited power by the federal government over state sovereignty and individual freedom.
I won’t even get into the whole “global warming is settled science” issue. Once you’ve claimed something is “settled,” there is no longer room for debate, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would ever change your mind. Settled or not, is it worth crippling the economy simply to be “careful and proactive,” just in case the climate-change alarmists are correct? I suspect most on the left would argue that the future prosperity of generations to come is well worth the sacrifice. If the United States devolves into a third-world country with third-world levels of poverty as a direct result of cap-and-trade legislation, so be it. We had a good run, right?
April 19th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
The Constitution ain’t a catalog. If it mentioned every damn thing a government might be expected to do, it would have been totally incoherent.
Hey, Steven. What you think is totally incoherent is precisely what the 10th Amendment says. The main part of the Constitution lists a bunch of things the federal government can or should do: defence, coining money, post office, etc. The 10th Amendment says that this list is the only things they’re allowed to do. In your words, the 10th Amendment says the Constitution is a catalogue
As a practical matter, the Courts have thrown out most of the 10th Amendment. So, item 1 on the list may be thought of as an attempt to bring new life to the 10th Amendment. You oppose that move, which is OK with me.
Regarding global warming. I agree that it’s settled science that the globe has been warming. However, the precise cause of the warming is not settled science. The current Global Warming period began many decades before man’s activity had a significant effect on the atmosphere. Furthermore, leading GW models have failed to predict accurately the last few years’ weather.
What is clear is this: if the scary GW models are correct, Cap’n Trade won’t save us. The magnitude of CO2 reduction contemplated by Cap’n Trade would be totally inadequate to save the planet from catastrophic warming.
You say, “Even were you less than sure, it pays to be careful and proactive.” Fine, but Cap’n Trade is not being proactive — not in any serious way. It’s like protecting your family from an oncoming Tsunami by giving them tea spoons to remove the water as it comes in.
April 20th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Steve, hope your dad’s doing better…
Reading the comments, I couldn’t resist responding-
It would be nice if the folks “defending” the Constitution would spend some time reading it and the other founding documents like the AoC, various State Constitutions, Federalist papers, etc. They may find it also useful to read about how the authors of the Constitution actually interpreted it as they governed.
As Steve mentions, McCulloch enshrined the principle of implied powers, argued originally by Hamilton in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a Bank of the US (http://www.constitution.org/mon/ah-bank.htm), as law… Jefferson argued against this (http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm), but used the same principle of implied powers to enact the Louisiana Purchase and enforce the Embargo Act when he became president…
Madison, who joined Jefferson in arguing against the Bank, had his hypocrisy pointed out when the famous line from the Federalist papers was read aloud in Congress, much to his personal embarrassment:
“No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included.”
Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, as well as many of his writings in the Federalist Papers expound the same broad view of federal power. In fact, Federalist #44, Madison eloquently lays out an argument against “State Sovereignty” which so many ultra-right wing conservatives are bandying about again…
Anyways, even a slight perusal of the historical documents will tell you that the founders themselves intended and created an active framework for government action. While some (Madison, in particular), switched positions during the Washington and Adams administration for political reasons, their original writings are crystal clear. Even if they weren’t, their actions as governing (rather than opposing) are also crystal clear.
Finally, not quite sure how the Courts could have “thrown out most of the 10th Amendment”, which as an amendment, is actually part of the Constitution, and subject to being “thrown out” only by the people via another Constitutional Amendment…
As for Global Warming, there’s a great write up by Julian Sanchez (libertarian Cato Institute) about epistemic closure on he right- (http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/07/epistemic-closure-technology-and-the-end-of-distance/)… Suggest you read it.
There is always room for debate about policy, but surely you can concede that scientists have little or no doubt about the causes of global climate change. In fact, the only place this “debate” exists is in elements of the closed conservative echo chamber that Sanchez is talking about.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:55 am
Hantu13 — there’s plenty of debate about the cause of global warming. I’m not talking about debate by politicians; I’m talking about debate among scientists. I know that it’s widely asserted that there’s no debate. However, you can find actual debate without too much trouble. Just do a bit of googling; you’ll find lots of scientists who are not satisfied that this is a closed question.
The way the Supreme Court “throws out” parts of the Constitution is first by writing decisions contrary to the words of that document. Then, subsequent Courts follow the SC decision, rather than the actual word of the Constitution,
Take the Kelo Decision. The Constitution allowed private property to be taken for “public use.” That meant your home could be taken for some governmental purpose, like building a highway.
The Kelo majority decision said, in effect, let’s pretend that the Constitution says private property can be taken for “public benefit”. That decision has made the “public benefit” standard the official interpretation of the Constitution. It’s just as if there had been a Constitutional Amendment changing the words “public benefit” to “public use”.
So, your property can now be taken by the government and given to some developer or other private person. We have lost the protection of the actual Constitution as written.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:53 am
Yours is a spectacularly poorly thought out piece. I would have thought that journalists/writers would have at least a working knowledge of critical thinking, logic, fallacies, etc.
I do not desire to get too involved in part 1. The first reason being that the provision is silly. An overbearing Congress will always just point to the commerce clause and enact what it pleases. Your assertion that McCullouch vs. Maryland settled the issue once and for all aside (it has not), it is an issue that has been debated since the founding and will continue to be. That said, there is little evidence suggesting that the founders would not be appalled by our current levels of government. Jefferson complained about its size in 1824.
Your “Cap and Trade” diatribe needs to be dealt with more specifically.
Goldman states: “Regarding all of the assertions above, prove them.”
Regarding all the assertions that global warming is manmade and that cap & trade will prevent the alleged consequences, prove them.
Goldman states: “And please, spare me the comebacks in the comments this time around unless you have a source that’s not bought and paid for.”
And your sources in favor (that are not bought and paid for) are?…. You are employing a poisoning the well fallacy and a genetic fallacy. Someone who gets paid to write should be able to do better.
Goldman states: “Global warming is settled science at this point, sorry to say.”
That is called “argument from popularity.” More pathetic is that it is not even popular. 48% of Americans believe global warming is exaggerated and the number has been rising. This “bought and paid for” statistic brought to you from Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx
Also, this from the BBC:
BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” what exactly do they mean, and what don’t they mean?
Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=4
Who is Jones? Some mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, gun-carrying, flat-earther, and Obama birther from West Virginny? No, it is Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones of East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit who has been the spear tip of the global warming push.
In the SAME interview, he admitted that his research supporting global warming theory, essentially the backbone of global warming research, cannot be verified or replicated. If you know anything about scientific theory, you know that data that cannot be verified or replicated is worthless.
Goldman stated: “It takes a special kind of short-sightedness for a group whose web site shows a picture of a little girl holding up a sign that says “Stop Spending My Future” to be in denial about a potential catastrophe so great that said little girl will not have a future to live in.”
And it takes a special kind of myopia to completely ignore the entire global warming theory falling around your ears.
Goldman stated: “Even were you less than sure, it pays to be careful and proactive.”
People who are brillinat regarding baseball but completely ignorant regarding history and politics should stick to writing about baseball. Even were you less than sure, it pays to be careful and proactive.
Mr. Goldman, is this REALLY the best you can do?
April 21st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Hantu13,
A well thought out post, even if much of it is incorrect. In fact, it is much better than Goldman’s.
Still, you resort to a strawman fallacies and Alinskyite demonizations to make your point. The Tea Party members are NOT arguing for “state sovereignty” as you describe it. They are arguing for federalism, as outlined in the Constitution. Like it or not, the US Constitution does provide a few rights for the federal government and reserves the rest for the people and states. “Ultra-right wing conservatives” are not calling for state sovereignty which, ironically, is much closer to being enshrined in the same AoC that you claim they should read.
Perhaps you should go back for a brush up yourself.
One more thing. I absolutely howled with laughter at you citing an article about “epistemic closure” in a post defending a writer who said, “Global warming is settled science” and then you go on to reiterate that the debate is over everywhere but in the conservative echo-chamber.
Did Woodrow Wilson outlaw mirrors for progressives in addition to banning free speech?
Did Margaret Sanger eugenicize self-awareness for progressives like she attempted to with the African-Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, and Jews that she referred to as “human weeds”?
Did George Bernard Shaw find the “humane gas” that he sought to use on the elderly and disabled and use it instead on progressive self-reflection?
Did the other heroes of the left (Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) finally enact the “final solution” on progressive common sense?
April 21st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
CnR,
I’m not quite sure what Margaret Sanger, Shaw or Wilson have to do with any of this. And not quite sure how Stalin, Mao and Hitler (fascism is typically associate with the right, since the were violently opposed to communism) are heroes to any reasonable American.
As for no-one arguing about state sovereignty, I’d point you to the 14 Attorneys General (Republicans) who have filed suit against the health care reform act. The crux of their argument is that Congress by issuing mandated coverage on residents of states, has exceeded it’s specifically granted authority.
I’m not as far left as Steve is, I’m a former north east Republican (economically moderate-conservative, socially liberal, realist foreign policy and pro strong defense), who has found that the party has gotten way to southern conservative for my taste. So, I’m a believer in federalism- that some things are better decided locally, and some should be handled centrally.
I share, however, Steve’s disdain of the tea party.
-Where were these ardent defenders of the Constitution when the former President ordered the national security apparatus to eavesdrop on the private communications of American citizens without a warrant? Or arrest and hold them without trial? I’ll leave aside the torture issue since it’s too much of a hot button, and while morally reprehensible, a red herring constitutionally- the above are far worse.
-The former government turned massive budget surpluses into unsustainable deficits by passing tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a massive drug benefit programs that made no pretense at fiscal restraint and launched two wars (one completely justified) while hiding the true cost from the budget. Where were the guardians of the public purse then?
-The former president essentially privatized large swaths of military responsibility to private firms with little or no supervision. Which, by the way, was one of the specific grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George- the use of mercenaries in the colonies. Did I miss the arguments from the right about how this was a violation of American principles?
I could go on. The point is, the previous administration did far more to violate Constitutional principles than this one, but somehow, most of these same voices were silent, if not cheer leading the excesses and condemning critics.
I just have not heard any intellectually coherent, practical governing philosophies from the movement, just noise about smaller government (without cutting defense, social security and medicare), less regulation (despite the fact that an unregulated finance sector nearly blew up the world economy and agribusinesses don’t ensure the cleanliness of our food supply and the chinese paint our kids’ toys with lead), and a return to “traditional” America (while cheerleading that we bomb Iran)…
What exactly is it that you believe in?
Best Regards,
April 21st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Is it settled science that most or all of our GW has been caused by man-made CO2? Proof that the science is not settled is a petition, signed by over 30,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 with PhDs, that says in part:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”
http://www.petitionproject.org/
April 21st, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Hantu13-
I am, like you, a socially liberal conservative. So, naturally, this makes me one step removed from a Communist in today’s political climate. I don’t really know how we got here.
I defended George W. Bush for years, but I simply could not do it forever. The Republican Party has embraced too many social platforms that I cannot support; from condemnation of homosexuality to a complete abandonment of the poor and disenfranchised. Yes, I want people to do for themselves. Freeloaders are not welcome. But some people DO do for themselves and still have a difficult time making a successful life for themselves. It’s not enough to dismiss these citizens as freeloaders and panhandlers.
As for your question about these so-called “protectors of the Constitution,” I’ve asked the same question many times. There is no coherent answer. It all just really boils down to partisan politics. When Bush did it, it was “different.” It’s always “different” when it’s your guy bending the rules. I’m used to it, but it’s still pretty lame when you see it in practice.
All you need to know is this: “9-11 changed everything”
Once you accept this, everything else becomes possible. No amount of spending, no amount of Constitutional overreaching, no amount of privacy-invading, none of it is too much. Just say that it’s all in the interests of national security, and the dominoes all fall into place.
It’s very frustrating.
April 21st, 2010 at 5:48 pm
John Foley, magnitude matters. Bush’s deficits were generally in the range of $100 billion to $400 billion. They averaged around $300 billion. You think that’s bad, and I agree with you
Obama’s deficits are in a whole new ballpark. For 2009 and 2010 they’re in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. That five times as bad as Bush’s. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit
Bush may have done a bad job economically, but Obama has been five times worse.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Hantu13,
Wilson, Sanger, Shaw, et al., have EVERYTHING to do with what is occuring today as their intellectual heirs are the ones taking us away from the constitution and towards a society where success is punished and individual liberty is disdained. When our president’s advisors are authors of evil creations as the “Whole Lives Theory”, there is little doubt that we are moving away from the country our FF’s intended.
The main reason I mentioned them was to point out your lack of self-awareness regarding your own “epistemic closure” regarding global warming. I am somewhat alarmed that you did not deal with that aspect of my post at all. Do you concede that AGW is NOT settled science?
And you could not be more wrong about Hitler. It was not until Hitler became an embarassment (Holocaust and all) that progressive educators in this country began teaching that fascism was on the “right.” Up until that point, and still in Europe, the left-right spectrum was totalitarianism on the left (unlimited government) and anarchy on the right (no government). Fascism is a totalitarian style of government and the American communists/progressives of the 1920’s-1930’s were very chummy with Hitler and Mussolini. In Europe, it became a family squabble as fascists/socailists/communists were competing for the same supporters. Remember, Nazis were National SOCIALISTS and the Nazi flag was red to draw communists to their cause. Look up the Nazi Party platform. 70-80% of it can be found in the communist, socialist, or modern progressive platforms.
You then go on to say that you are a moderate who believes that some things should be handled locally and some centrally. I think we all believe that but where is the line drawn? I am not calling you a liar by any means but I fail to see how you could support ANY substantial issue being handled “locally” when you support the most private and personal issue a person could have (healthcare) being mandated and controlled centrally. You are a progressive. I have no problem with that other than the movement’s inability to affect change by constitutional means. If the change was occurring through the democratic process instead of by judges who make up law and politcians that ignore the constitution’s plain meaning, we could have the debate and let the people decide. Instead, it is occurring through the erosion of our national institutions.
I am not going to deal with your bulleted points line by line because they seem to add up to “Where were you when Bush was in office!” Well, I was complaining about a lot of them but who cares? Your argument is a logical fallacy called “two wrongs make a right” and another called an “inconsistency ad hominen.” Does it matter where they were? Does the point that they were not complaining under Bush (a VERY broad generalization that is unsupported) automatically make Obama’s worse expansion of government right? Of course not.
The problem is that you are too caught up in “R” and “D” when the real debate is between classical liberalism and progressivism. Both of these can be found in either party. Teddy Roosevelt, both Bushes, and McCain were progressive Republicans. I dislike all of them as much as I dislike Obama.
A few points of fact from your bulleted list.
1) The Patriot Act (not to mention Gitmo) is still law of the land. To use your own inconsistency ad hominem against you, where are you NOW when your Dems have an overwhelming majority in both houses and control the White House?
2) Why hasn’t the current government stopped the wars, repealed the tax cuts, repealed the drug program, and restored us back to fiscal sanity instead of exponentially increasing the debt?
3) Privatized “large swaths?” We are overstating things a little, no?
4) The final paragraph is rife with factual errors. (BTW, I support cutting defense by removing troops from peaceful countries and stopping them from reaping the benefit of the peace dividend we pay for, social security by upping the age to receive benefits, and medicare). I am completely blown away by your “unregulated” comment when SOX is the most stringent set of regulations ever imposed on big finance and business while Obama is pulling money from Wall Street at unprecedented levels. Goldman Sachs and he smoke cigarettes after they meet because they are both so “satisfied.” What blew up the economy was social engineering by deeming we all deserved the “American Dream,” even if we can not afford it.
BTW, I am a classical liberal.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:17 pm
David-
Yes, but even uttering the words “Bush (is doing) a bad job economically” was considered anathema during his tenure. If you said such a thing you were accused of hating America and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
To be a Republican during Bush’s tenure meant making a lot of excuses. I got tired of making excuses for him. No one was saying “magnitude matters.” Any criticism of Bush was just chalked up to the wicked liberal media. Even actual, sensible criticism was just dismissed. That’s not productive.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
John Foley,
I would feel much better regarding your condemnation of “partisan politics” if I felt you meant it. You only condemn it when the Republicans use it.
Most of the items you condemn Bush/Tea Partiers/Republicans for are still occuring. Gitmo is still open. We are still in two wars. The Patriot Act is still law of the land. Yet, you remain eerily silent about Obama not reversing these policies.
The reason is that you are stuck in “R” and “D” mode. The quicker the American people stop arguing “R” and “D” and stand on principles, the quicker we can affect change and stop being useful idiots for both parties.
This can be seen throughout your post. The Republican Party has “condemned homosexuality?” Really? Can you show me THAT in the platform? Not supporting gay marriage is far different than the “condemnation of homosexuality,” as you would phrase it. Be honest in your rhetoric or we will never move forward.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:35 pm
John Foley,
You claim that anyone disagreeing with Bush was said to hate America and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. By who? Limbaugh? Hannity? Who cares? I never heard the Bush administration say it. That said, anyone who did say it was being grossly irresponsible.
The question is, though, what is the difference between that and Tea Partiers (or the vulgar reference “baggers”) are all “racists, rednecks, ignorant,” etc?
Both are un-American attempts to silent opposition and we should all be condemning both…
April 21st, 2010 at 6:43 pm
CNR-
How the hell do you know what I’ve been “eerily silent” about? Do we know each other? If I have a problem with something our President does, I don’t care what party he represents. I don’t align with either major party.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
1+1=2, no matter where you do the addition.
In this blog, you have been doing kamikaze style rants against everything Bush and wrapping a nice big Snuggie around everything progressive.
I kind of doubt you undergo an ideology transplant when the computer turns off.
“Condemnation of homosexuals” and “complete abandonment of the poor and disenfranchised” are not exactly the words of a someone who is bi-partisan. You may have convinced yourself of it but not me.
April 21st, 2010 at 7:09 pm
CNR-
You got me. I’m secretly Bernie Sanders.
April 21st, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Hantu,
One obvious point I cannot believe I missed.
You stated that you did not believe that Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. were heroes to any “reasonable Americans.”
I agree.
However, I can barely go to the mall without seeing a Mao t-shirt or hat. The same is true with Che t-shirts.
Anita Dunn, the WH communications director until last November called Mao one of her favorite political philosophers. Hey, he killed “only” 70 million!
Ron Bloom, the Manufacturing Czar, said that “We agree with Mao that power generally comes from the barrel of a gun.” (I will not even get into his comment that the “free-market is a joke.” What else would you expect from an advisor for MANUFACTURING?)
The White House Christmas tree had a bulb with Mao’s face on it.
Does it bother you that all of these people you would call “unreasonable” are working in positions of power within our White House????
April 21st, 2010 at 7:26 pm
You may not be Bernie Sanders but you are a lot closer to him than GW, TJ, BF, and the other FFs.
And I have a lot of respect for Bernie Sanders. At least he is honest about his ideology and intentions, even if I disagree with almost everything he says.
And he makes some GREAT chicken!
April 21st, 2010 at 8:43 pm
GNR-
Are you actually accusing me of lying about my ideology? That’s weak. Weak and personally insulting. I didn’t make it personal with you. Know why? Because I don’t know you. You could show me the same courtesy.
April 21st, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I said you were closer to Bernie Sander’s ideology than the FF’s.
YOU brought lying into this. And I do agree that it is weak…
April 21st, 2010 at 10:30 pm
CNR-
You did say “At least he is honest about his ideology and intentions,” implying that someone else in this discussion has not been honest. Since you’d already questioned my motives and ideology, I assumed you were referring to me; calling me dishonest. Glad to see you were not.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:54 pm
*Sigh*
CnR,
You’re commentary suggests you’ve gotten some info from Glenn Beck, which may prove to be problematic if you think it important that arguments be based in fact.
A simple google search of Anita Dunn and Mao will reveal what she actually said, which of course, is quite a different thing than a well regarded political strategist being a Maoist… As for Che and Mao T-shirts, I won’t pretend I understand it, but for some reason, they’ve become fashion icons… Lord knows why… I do wish kids would pay more attention to history when they wear this stuff, but they don’t.
I guess one could ask how so many modern supporters of the party of Abraham Lincoln could so frequently wave around the flag of a defeated, treasonous organization responsible for starting a war that lead to the death of 620,000 Americans so they could keep black people as slaves… And then 100 years later used the same flag as a symbol of a political movement dedicated to preventing black kids from going to school with white ones.
In any case, your statement about Nazis, communists and the left is so historically inaccurate (I think I saw a John Stewart clip about Glenn Beck prattling on about something like this), I’m really not sure where to begin. The left-right axis started shortly before the French Revolution, when the royalist party (aristocrats) sat on the right, and the reformists (typically commoners) sat on the left. From then on, political scientists and historians have defined the right as being associated with preserving the social order (establishments, social class, religion, etc.), and the left with overthrowing it. This is neither here nor there. I don’t think Conservatives have much in common with Nazis (though they have learned a lot about propaganda from Goebbels), and I’m sure you’ll agree that most moderates, progressives, and American liberals are not Stalinists or Maoists. If you seriously can’t accept this, not sure I’m interested in continuing this.
Again, you haven’t actually answered any of my questions about why this movement of righteous Constitutional guardians wasn’t in the streets protesting the previous administration, as it is now.
Not sure how you think this is a fallacy of 2 wrongs, when I made no representations about the morality or constitutionality of the current administration’s national security policy, just asked a simple question. I am interested in an answer to this. My personal suspicion is that John Foley is correct, but am open to hearing alternative theories.
You also asked how I could support a mandate to purchase health insurance. If you accept the following points:
1- Our health care system is currently very inefficient and fiscally unsustainable and must be reformed in order to get our fiscal house in order.
2- Rapid, large scale and fundamental changes to the current system, which has existed for over 50 years and is huge part of our economy, is undesirable and unpredictable.
3- Employer based health care does not make sense in the modern economy and unfairly burdens American companies in a global market, while discouraging entrepreneurs from leaving their employers to take risks.
4- It is morally unacceptable for hospitals not to treat people who are sick, but don’t have insurance.
5- Health Insurance companies should not be permitted to drop coverage after the fact or refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or practice any other adverse selection biased risk shuffling.
If you accept these 5 points, I’m afraid you end up with something very close to the current law. This is why the Republicans offered this as an alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s, after the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea in the late 80s and why Mitt Romney implemented it in Massachusetts. There is simply no other practical way to ensure universal access, lower costs and fair practices by insurance companies without nationalizing everything.
Of course, if you think that ER docs should be able to turn you away if you don’t have insurance, or that lowering costs isn’t a priority, or that insurance companies should be free to drop you once you become sick, then there’s not much point to this discussion since we’re working from different facts.
As for global warming, I don’t have the energy to get into it… Suggest you ask the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society, which are the two oldest (Sir Isaac Newton was once the chair of the RS), authoritative and most respected scientific organizations in the world what they think about anthropomorphic climate change. If you don’t accept what they say, nothing I or anyone else can say will convince you. You can call this an appeal to authority if you’d like, but if you won’t accept the interpretation of the data by the most qualified scientists in the field, not sure where we go from here…
Cheers…
April 21st, 2010 at 11:00 pm
No problem. I can see where it could be read that way. Think of it as, “I disagree with his ideology completely but appreciate his honesty about it.” The statement was 100% about him.
There is no “I love capitalism” dance while he attempts to dismantle it. He is what he is. His honesty about it is not matched by Obama and the progressive congressional caucus.
Without knowing you personally to make an educated judgment, you very well could be or were a Republican. It’s a meaningless word anyway. You would be a progressive republican with the emphasis on progressive.
I just wish that Americans would learn their history and what progressivism was and is.
Have a good night.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Holy @#$@#$@#$
Just turned on the Yankee game…
April 21st, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Of course! ANYONE who is not a progressive is a drooling Glenn Beck follower. It is not an argument but will have to do absent one.
Anita Dunn stated that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers. I’m not quite sure what facts you are working from, but that sounds way too cozy for me. As a mental exercise, imagine the reaction if John Boehner said that “Hitler was one of the political philosophers he admired most.” I think we would be getting far more than yawns from you.
Your next paragraph makes my previous point. Again, you look to paint the right as a bunch of mouth-breathing racists waving the confederate flag. That is Saul Alinsky to a “T” and does not resemble debate at all. Of course it was the Dems that supported slavery and mainly opposed the civil rights movement. Of course it was a progressive and Dem darling (Margaret Sanger) who wrote for Nazi eugenics journals, had them write in hers, and looked to exterminate blacks, hispanics, Jews, etc., calling them “human weeds.”
And sorry, you really do not have knowledge of our founding fathers and their political spectrum. I appreciate your Wikihistory version but it just is not accurate… If you would like, I can point to countless instances of American Progressives flirting with Hitler and Mussolini rather than being mortal enemies.
And, no, most modern progressives are not Maoists, Stalinists, etc. They ARE, however, influenced by their beliefs just as I am influenced by the FF’s beliefs. To deny that is a fool’s errand. And BTW, it was the NAZIS who sad they learned the art of propaganda from the US progressives, specifically Wilson and FDR (look up Wilson’s 4 minute men).
If I did not answer the question of “why” the TPers were not in the street for Bush, it is because I said it was irrelevant. The “why” does not matter any more than “why” you are not in the streets protesting the Obama administration this minute, while they carry on Bush’s policies. People wake up at different times. You do not ask why they did not wake up earlier. (Perhaps 300b deficits ballooning to 1.8t deficits has something to do with it?).
And I do agree with 1-5. Too bad Obamacare does not address those issues with any efficiency. But, no, an unconstitutional power grab is not the only way to fix it.
I’m not sure of your point regarding climate change. That two organizations believe in AGW does not even mean that everyone INSIDE the organization supports the position and completely ignores the inconvenient truth that thousands of scientists disagree. Your argument was that it is settled science. Gravity is “settled science.” All scientists believe in it. AGW is not. You and Steven are wrong and should man up and admit it.
And I suspect, like nearly all other climate science, their findings are at least partially based on Phil Jones’ work which he admits cannot be verified or replicated.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:37 am
Hantu — maybe it’s because I’m an insurance expert, but some of your 5 points don’t look obvious to me. I’ll repeat your points in italics and then respond:
1- Our health care system is currently very inefficient and fiscally unsustainable and must be reformed in order to get our fiscal house in order.
This is 3 points. I agree only with the first. Our health care system is inefficient.
However, it’s not fiscally unsustainable. Americans buy a lot of health care, because we’re rich and health care is important. As health care gets more and more expensive (and better and better), some people won’t be able to afford the very best of care. So, they’ll get less than the very best. What God ever guaranteed that every single American would get the very best of health care?
What is unsustainable is a government system that promises the very best to every participan, such as Medicare. The Dems have made this problem worse by guaranteeing the best of health care to even more people. We can be certain that these guarantees will not be fulfilled.
Making our health care system more efficient would be nice. IMHO the bill that was passed makes it less efficient and also makes if more difficult or impossible to ever make the system more efficient. E.g., that bill encourages more malpractice suits and makes malpractice reform more difficult.
Set that aside. Suppose a magical one-time gain in efficiency reduced the cost of medical care by 25%. If medical costs continued to rise at 10% per year, they would soon outstrip that one-time 25% saving.
2- Rapid, large scale and fundamental changes to the current system, which has existed for over 50 years and is huge part of our economy, is undesirable and unpredictable.
I’d accept this as a generality, although it depends on the changes, of course
3- Employer based health care does not make sense in the modern economy and unfairly burdens American companies in a global market, while discouraging entrepreneurs from leaving their employers to take risks.
I’d accept this a generality.
4- It is morally unacceptable for hospitals not to treat people who are sick, but don’t have insurance.
This sort of thinking makes me angry. It’s so easy for those of us who aren’t bothering to provide health care to claim that there’s a moral responsibility for those who provide such care to do more than they’re doing. It seems equally logical (that is, not logical at all) to assert that there’s a moral responsibility for people who waste our time writing comments on blogs to go to nursing school and devote our lives to healing the sick.
Furthermore, it doesn’t work. Hospitals are already going bankrupt because they’re overly burdened with requirements. Then they can’t treat anybody.
5- Health Insurance companies should not be permitted to drop coverage after the fact or refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or practice any other adverse selection biased risk shuffling.
Should a burning building pay the same fire insurance rate as one that isn’t burning? Obviously not.
Furthermore, if people can wait until their house is on fire to buy insurance, many people won’t buy any insurance until a fire occurs. But, if the insurance company insures mostly buildings that are already on fire, they’ll have to charge enormous, unaffordable premiums.
The same principle applies to people waiting until they’re sick to buy health insurance.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
David–
It makes you angry to hear people say that society has a moral obligation to make sure the sick can receive adequate medical care!? Wow. Just wow.
It’s sad, and more than a little disturbing, that you can only view the question from a self-interested, business perspective, but, hey, at least you’re honest about it: your own profit margins as an “insurance expert” matter more than the health of the populace.
I’m not saying that the financial viability of the health care industry doesn’t matter, but I am saying that when you’re trying to ascertain ethical principles you don’t begin by asking, “Would such a principle be profitable?” You begin by trying to logically ascertain the principle and only then do you try to figure out how to get as close to that principle as possible in the real world. But to get “angry” about a moral claim you need to demonstrate why that claim is wrong–not why it would be problematic to adhere to for the industry you happen to work in.
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Louis, you misunderstood my point. It annoys me when people say someone else, but not themselves, has a moral obligation to make sure the sick receive adequate medical care — especially when those defining this moral obligation are doing nothing to heal the sick, while those they heap the extra burdens onto are already doing a lot to heal the sick.
If Hantu takes some sort of medical training and works to help the sick, or if Hantu contributes money to help heal the sick, s/he has my greatest respect. What makes me angry is when someone sits on his butt doing nothing while proclaiming that hospitals have a moral obligation to do more than they’re already doing.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Yes, it seems I misunderstood you a bit, David.
The issue you raise is a tough one, because it’s hard to draw the line as to when any individual has done his or her fair share. The philosopher Peter Singer likes to present this kind of hypothetical scenario: Imagine you’re walking past a lake and you spot a child drowning in it. No one else is around to help save that child, so you decide you must do so; however, you are certain that doing so will ruin the expensive new pants you are wearing. In this scenario, most everyone would agree that saving the child’s life is more important than the loss of your new pants. Singer then goes on to point out, though, that each of us could save a child’s (or children’s) life by donating our excess income to reputable charities; the only difference is that we don’t see that child drowning in front of us. But the decision whether or not to donate is parallel in nature to the decision whether or not to ruin your pants: preserve my money or save someone else’s life? Singer’s point is that we’re always making that decision whenever we purchase non-essential goods and services.
There are obviously problems and difficulties with his argument, and with defining what goods are “non-essential,” but one of its interesting implications is that almost none of us ever acts in accordance with ethical ideals. (Singer himself “only” donates ~80% of his “excess” income (income above average cost of living), rather than a full 100%) In my view, the key take away from his arguments is not that we’re all moral reprobates (I only donate ~1% of my own income), but that the burden of acting ethically often falls upon society as a whole, and the government, because, left to their own devices, individuals won’t always act in the most ethically responsible manner. We as humans need to take steps to try to legislate ethical behavior for ourselves, because it sure as heck don’t come natural.
In the case of health care, the system is so massive and unwieldy that I think it’s hard to argue that the burden falls heavily on individuals. So I don’t think it matters how much Hantu, or myself, or others who argue that health care is a moral obligation, personally devote to heal the sick–it’s orthogonal to the main issue: setting up policy that gets as close to the ethical ideal as possible. It’d be nice for us individuals to do something, but we’re not hypocrites if we don’t: the solution needs to be systemic, beyond the scope of what any individual can do… Even a full-time nurse who also volunteers at a nursing home on the weekends probably isn’t doing enough (as an individual) by Singer’s standards of the ethical ideal.
(As for myself, I believe I make most of my own ethical contributions indirectly, by teaching and writing about literature, art, philosophy, ethics, etc. They’re meager contributions, I’m aware, but they’re what I feel I’m good at, and they’re what excite me. And I never prosyletize, crudely telling students to vote Democrat or something. I see it more as a matter of conditioning them to exercise their critical intelligence, to be more sensitive and measured in their responses to the world around them by attending to literature, art, writing, and ideas. And I think that’s actually a pretty similar goal to Steven’s own goal in much of his writing.)
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 am
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Louis. IMHO Singer’s argument could be extgended farther. Donating his disposable income from his current job doesn’t save the maximum number of children. If he left his university position and adopted a higher paid profession, he could donate more money. By selfishly teaching at Princeton, when he could become a Wall Street investment analyst, he allows dozens of children to die. Is he morally obligated to change profession, even if would like it less than his present job?
This extension is ridiculous IMHO. It shows that there’s no obvious stopping point when one decides that everyone is responsible for the welfare of all humans (and, from what I’ve read, Singer feels responsible for the welfare of animals as well.)
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 am
@ConstitutionNotRevolution: I haven’t even read the rest of the comments yet (now I’m not looking forward to it but I still will as I see there’s lots of debate going on) but I have to reply to “the other heroes of the left (Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) …” right away. There’s only so much I can take and remain civil. You’re an asshole. Throw out all the philosophical/debate terminology you want, that single statement is enough to disqualify you from being taken seriously about anything else, ever.
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Still working my way through–the “MAO ornament” was an Andy Warhol version, pasted on by another American (not anyone in the administration, not that it matters) with a sense of humor. You insufferable jackass.
Alright, I gotta stop feeding the troll. I’ll try to restrain myself from future comments and insults.
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:55 pm
@Hantu: thank you for thoroughly replying to CNR with far more civility than I obviously am capable of. Well said.
April 24th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Stay classy, Mike K.
April 24th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Hitler is a hero of the left? That’s like saying Fred Phelps is a hero of the right. That’s something you’d say for shock value, nothing more.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am
@MG: really? Was that deserving of a classy reply? I agree I’d have been better off ignoring it though, especially as some actual interesting discussion from other authors followed.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:37 am
@David in Cal: Sorry I got sidetracked by the flame wars, I hope you see this comment as I think you raised an interesting issue:
“This extension is ridiculous IMHO. It shows that there’s no obvious stopping point when one decides that everyone is responsible for the welfare of all humans (and, from what I’ve read, Singer feels responsible for the welfare of animals as well.)”
That’s a reasonable argument, I’ll admit. I don’t agree though. I’m comfortable with having an ideal to strive for, even if I fall short. I don’t donate anything like all of my wages above subsistence level to charity (then again, I don’t make all that much more, but that’s not really relevant). But reading Singer did convince me to donate much more than I did before. Is the world worse off if Singer contributes “only” 80% of his “excess” or if he donates nothing at all?
The same thing applies to your taking Singer to task for not being an investment banker. First of all, you assume that he’s as well suited to that job as he is to academia, which isn’t obviously true (and likely is false–it’s hard to imagine a **scholar of ethics** lasting for more than a day on Wall Street, isn’t it?). Second, you take Singer to task for not (theoretically) maximizing his income but who among us is perfect? Again, I find it far better to act altruistically in pursuit of an unobtainable ideal than to live with your cynical point of view.
Singer actually addresses your very argument in reference to vegetarianism (he may also directly address it in terms of altruism, but I’m familiar with his what he wrote about animals so I’m going with that). He himself is a vegetarian (possibly a vegan, I can’t remember) but he makes clear that even if you choose to eat meat, even eating *less* meat than you otherwise would is a moral act. Imperfect, yes, but the animals who aren’t slaughtered when you opt for a vegetarian meal once night a week are real, nonetheless.
January 17th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
**YOUTUBE VIDEO REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST ELECTRONICS OUT**…
#1 SITE FOR THE LATEST REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST TECHNOLOGY HITTING THE MAINSTREAM!…