Classification of Democrats

Dave Schuler of the Glittering Eye reminds me of something I've been meaning to blog about. I spent the first 3/4 of 2004 in Chicago, and the rest (so far) in the San Francisco Bay area. Though both are utterly controlled by Democrat Party establishments, they are completely different places politically.

The San Francisco Democrats are less Democrats than unabashed Lefties, basically moonbats as far as I can tell. They will support any loony cause - the more anti-freedom and anti-wealth the better - and have a tendency to march in the streets and burn things. There is a clear line of blame drawn here: any Jew in Israel; any other Jew; any American Republican; any other American. Any problem can be blamed on one of the above groups by matching them, in order. Hence, Wolfowitz is, in the Bay Area, somewhat worse than Satan (who I suspect many of the more fringe Lefties here would classify as "misunderstood"). Being here around the election was, er, interesting.

The Chicago-area Democrats are patriotic, corrupt, actually concerned with the plight of their fellow man (though not too good at judging consequences), and mostly harmless. Their the kind of people I picture as the party of Truman, Roosevelt and "Scoop" Jackson, and can be more or less trusted to run the country, at least to the degree that anyone could be so trusted. Demonstrations downtown are fairly constant around the Federal buildings, but small-scale and polite (and mostly conducted by quite old people). While I was there, the demonstrations tended to be straight anti-war affairs, without a lot of far Left weirdness.

I don't know what the NorthEastern Democrats are like - though the Kennedy family, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis give me suspicions.

I don't really have much to say on this; it's just an observation.

Bad Congress! No Biscuit for You!

Fred Barnes on Fox News tonight said of the intelligence reform bill just passed by the the House and due to be passed by the Senate tomorrow: "This is a dumb bill." I concur. But rather than address why the bill is dumb (Dave Shuler of The Glittering Eye does that nicely), I'm interested in why it is that the Congress would pass a manifestly dumb law, and do it very, very quickly.

From a cynical point of view, this is actually the perfect bill. Why so?

• It looks like Congress is "doing something."
• There is almost no meaningful opposition in Congress.
• It takes away an issue from potential opponents in the next election.
• If it fails, the blame doesn't fall on Congress.
• It transfers power to the Federal government.
• It spends money.

It is inherent to the character of politicians that they live to wield power. In order to wield power in a representatively-governed country, a politician must be elected, and then re-elected frequently. In order to get re-elected, a politician must therefore avoid criticism. One sure way to defuse potential criticism is to have a policy on every problem.

This is why the President and the executive agencies have so many policies, many not ever acted on, and it's why the Congress passes so many laws. After all, once Congress passes a law on any given problem, that problem is no longer unlegislated. Since the Congress' job is to legislate, their job is then done and, from their point of view, the problem is solved, and thus no liability to them. Whether the law solves the problem at hand, or even whether it is Constitutional, is really beside the point: Congressmen don't tend to fail of re-election for voting on a bad law, but they do lose by voting against things.

It's very difficult to take a controversial stand, if you are a politician, because such stands hand ammunition to your opponent in the next election. It's much easier to go with the flow, whether that means straight party-line voting or voting with an assured majority. Here is an opportunity to do both, because the leadership of both parties backs the bill.

Let's say that the US is attacked again. In that case, any given Congressman can simply say that the vast majority of the Congress supported the bill, it was a good bill, it's just that the implementation was flawed. But if that fails, there's a fallback: the bill implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and how can Congress possibly be blamed for doing what the "experts" said needed to be done - not to mention the 9/11 widows! Either way, the politicians can disclaim responsibility and shift it, either to their political opponents or at least to someone who can't be easily disparaged.

The lust for power should not be underestimated. For Congressmen, power has two requisites: a rationale for why Congress should be able to legislate on a particular matter, and the expenditure of money.

It doesn't really matter to most Congressmen whether or not a law is Constitutional. What matters is whether they can make the law stick. (From their point of view, it's the job of the courts to enforce the Constitution. I will refrain from ranting, but it's a close call.) This requires some rationale, of which the most abused is probably the interstate commerce clause.

But regardless of the rationale, the key is to gain power, and power is directly correlated to the size of the government over which the Congressmen are exercising power, and the number of people dependent on Federal largesse and how dependent they are. As a result, the most commonly-used solutions to a problem are throwing money at existing programs, throwing money directly at people, creating new Federal agencies, expanding existing Federal agencies and adding new powers to existing Federal agencies. This bill has a little of each of these.

So, the faster the better and pass anything! Bummer, though, if you're either a taxpayer or resident in the next major terror target.

New Education Secretary Nominated

President Bush has nominated Margaret Spellings, an education advisor for George Bush both as President and when he was Governor, for Education Secretary. Curious about her views on homeschooling, an issue that deeply effects us, I went googling, and found this:

Mrs. Wright, from Oklahoma writes:
Yes, Homeschooling is becoming more widespread and I would like to know how the President feels about Homeschooling? Is he in favor of testing all children public school educated and homeschooled according to a state mandated set of guidelines? Does he feel that the government schools and/or private organized schools can provide the best education for all children or that parents should have the right to educate their children themselves?

Margaret Spellings
President Bush absolutely believes that parents should aboslutely have the right to educate their children themselves. Whether or not home school students are tested is a state issue. As Governor of Texas, President Bush did not support testing for home schooled students and Texas was considered to be one of the most home school friendly states. President Bush believes that good education can be found in public schools, private schools and home schools.

Works for me; I'm happy to be left alone.

A Pretty Good System

The older I get, and the more political situations I see in the US and abroad, the more impressed I am by Madison's brainchild. The system of governance put forth in the US Constitution is simply stunningly well-conceived to its purpose. This post is about current events, but since the US government-school education system does such a poor job of teaching the basics of our civic society, I need to lay some groundwork first. Please bear with me.

The purpose of our Constitution is not, in fact, to promote fairness, provide a system that guarantees a certain standard of living to everyone, or ensure that pretty much everyone in the society has a vote on who runs the government. These are frequently thought to be the reasons for the Constitution; in fact they are side-effects of its governmental design.

The Founders, at the Constitutional Convention, sought to provide a much better and more stable system of government than existed under the Articles of Confederation, America's first constitutional system. In fact, they sought "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Their goal was to create a stable governing system based on providing the minimum necessary powers to government and the maximum Liberty to individuals.

There were some key compromises embedded in the Constitution, including both its most brilliant features (federalism, division of powers, limitations on the power of government, the systems for choosing government officers) and its most terrible flaws (acceptance of slavery). These compromises struck a balance that, with few exceptions, has in fact provided the most stable system of governance on the planet, along with maximizing the amount of Liberty enjoyed by Americans. Let's explore a few of these, and then we'll explore how they are important today.

The idea of Federalism was particularly powerful. By putting the powers of government as close as possible to the people, the ability for one group to gain large amounts of power over another - in other words the possibility of a tyrannical government arising - was minimized. Let's say that a particular State decides that only certain people can get married, and that the State will enforce all kinds of rules to decide that only the "right people" get married. Fine, but all that someone has to do to avoid that and marry whom they would is to move to another State. Or let's say that a particular State decides to extend massive governmental aid to the least-wealthy of its citizens, and to impose huge taxes to do so. Again, all one has to do to avoid this is to move to another State. Federalism allows a very diverse population to all get the legal and political environment they want, as long as what they want is not to control the behaviors of others. Moreover, it's one thing to be one of 10 people at a town council meeting, and another to be one of 100 in a State representative's office, and still another again to be one of millions petitioning Congress. Federalism makes it possible for citizens to maximize their influence over politicians.

A part of this same protection is to severely limit the powers of government, with the powers becoming ever more limited the further they get from the ability of the people to influence them. This not only limits the damage of a bad law, it also prevents the worst laws from being enacted. The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government to those directly specified in the text, or immediately necessary to carrying out the powers specified in the text. (For example, the Congress can authorize the expenditure of money to create a building in which people can carry out their functions under the Constitution. Theoretically, the Congress could not authorize money to build a building for private use. I say "theoretically" because the interpretation of the Constitution most used since the 1930s is that there are effectively no limits to government power, except to some extent those embedded in the Bill of Rights. More on this anon.)

To make it even more difficult for the Federal government to tyrannize the people, the government's powers were brilliantly divided among two legislative bodies, the House and Senate, an executive and the judiciary. The legislative bodies would have to agree on the need for and form of a law before it could be passed; the executive would have to concur (or be overridden) for the law to pass, and would have to enforce the law for it to have effect; the courts would interpret the law, and would have to agree on the justice of its enforcement in any particular case. Overall, actions could not be taken by the government without enabling legislation, and the associated funding, nor without the affirmative action of the executive, nor without the concurrence of the judiciary as to the legality and rightness of the action.

In addition to the division of powers, each of these offices was chosen in a different manner. Representatives were directly chosen by small numbers of people, and served for a limited time; they were structured to protect the individual rights of the people. Senators were chosen by the States, and served a longer term; they were structured to preserve the sovereignty of the States, and thus the rights of the people to govern themselves. The President was to be chosen by a group of electors, who were to nominate the people they felt would make the best President (and one of whom at least must not be from their own State, to prevent large States from controlling the process). The electors themselves were to be chosen by the people, but were not to be bound to vote for any given person in advance. In other words, the President was to be chosen not by the citizenry at large, but by electors trusted by the people to choose wisely from among the available potential Presidents. I believe that it was the Founders' intention that there would not be campaigns for President at all, but that the electors would seek out, determine the eligibility of, interview and choose the best-qualified candidate. Again the intent was to tamp down party politics (what the Founders termed factionalism) and prevent particular States from accumulating too much sway over the others.

There were two deep flaws embedded in the Constitution (and one flaw created by its absence, which turns out not to have mattered in the long run). One embedded flaw was the acceptance of slavery. Until the 13th Amendment, in 1865, Article I, Section 2 implicitly embedded slavery into our governing fabric. The conflict between allowing slavery and demanding Liberty eventually led the country to split into two powerful and uncompromising camps, and was a major cause of the Civil War, which in the end led to the abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude. Our failure to fully embrace this change led to discrimination, the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement and our problems with racial politics, which thankfully seem to be abating over time. (Perhaps my children will be adults in a country which does not play racial games (on both sides) for political gain - I certainly hope so.)

The second embedded flaw was the electoral system, which in the original almost guaranteed that the President and Vice President would be at cross purposes. This was rectified with the 12th Amendment. But the 12th Amendment itself was flawed: having removed the ability for a partisan coup to change the governing party, it did not consequently make it easier to impeach the President. This effectively shifted power dramatically to the President. In the end, that may not turn out to be an altogether bad thing, but it certainly goes against the original design.

More importantly, though, the effect of the 12th Amendment was to bring about the two-party system. Because the elections are winner-take-all, and there's no way to specify an order of preference, the importance of factions was diminished by forcing the factions to share the responsibility for governance. Once there was no shared responsibility, it was a matter of time until a robust two-party system developed. This, too, might have been bearable, had it not been for the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment, by removing the ability of the States to select Senators (instead making Senators elected by the people of each State), removed the political check on the ability of the Federal government to act. Effectively, the Senate became a longer-serving House. The very brake on popular passions that the Senate was created to provide was effectively eliminated. In combination with the two-party system, this effectively guaranteed that the political system would devolve into an us-against-them partisanship, driving down participation by the non-partisans, locking out any other parties from competing on a level legal field, and increasing the stakes of winning rather dramatically.

Taken together, the Constitution did an amazing job of creating a stable governing structure and preserving the maximum of individual Liberty compatible with long-term civil governance. In particular, what our system as originally constituted provides is protection of minorities (whether permanent or transient) from the power of the government as wielded by the majority. A few large States cannot control the electoral college (which is one reason why eliminating it would be a bad idea); a few powerful individuals cannot ensure passage of a particular law to benefit them; a populous region cannot automatically compel the behavior of people outside of that region and so on.

And here is where we come to current events. The Democrats and Republicans are switching places. For the foreseeable future, the Republicans will be the political majority party and the Democrats will be the political minority party. To a large degree, this comes about because of a perfectly natural behavior: self-segregation. From working in the San Francisco Bay Area for a short time, I can assert that I would not be terribly comfortable living there. Not only is the legal environment unwelcoming on issues important to my family and myself (taxation, homeschooling, midwifery), but everywhere I went out just before the election, I heard people talking about my views and the people who hold them in the most scathing terms. Who wants that? I doubt someone from the upper West side of New York City would be terribly comfortable in Keller, TX, for the same reasons.

So the movement of people to be around those who believe similarly tends to produce regionalism where none would otherwise exist. Hence we get the red state/blue state phenomenon, with few "swing states" in the middle. This happens on more issues than just political viewpoints, involving race, religion, ethnicity, cultural feel and economics, among others. The result is that the Democrats have been concentrated more and more heavily into fewer and fewer States, and even into fewer counties within those States. This is a similar phenomenon to how the Republicans were concentrated between the 1930s and the 1970s, and the results are similar: even though the White House may go back and forth, control of the Congress is pretty well assured to the Republicans for a long time to come.

Now, with this switch, the Democrats are suddenly feeling what it's like to be in the long-term minority. You don't get to set the agenda or control the debate. You don't get to direct spending and legislation the way you want it to go, and you don't get to decide who the regulators are. You don't get to appoint the judges to ensure that your laws are interpreted "correctly". Instead of making policies and forcing others to live with them, you are being forced to live with policies made by others. Some Democrats are reacting rationally, and some less so.

But the Republicans have also switched positions. Instead of being for the "Gingrich revolution" of stopping unfunded mandates, turning power over to the States, controlling the spending and thus the power of the Federal government, some Republicans are savoring the chance to change the legal and political environment back to the way they prefer it to be. No Child Left Behind and the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to keep courts from adjudicating on marriage prerequisites are but a foretaste of what we will see over the next couple of decades, barring too-early overreaching on the part of the Republicans' fringe. (If the ultra-Right gets control of the agenda, the shift will quickly reverse itself, perhaps in less than a decade.)

We are at a balancing point, just barely tipped over into the Republicans' advantage. There are still a lot of Republicans who remember being in the minority, and appreciate Federalism and judicial restraint therefore. There are beginning to be some Democrats who appreciate these characteristics, too. It's just possible that right now, in the very near term, we can come together to strip away some of the fiscal and regulatory power of the Federal government, to return power to the States and the people, and to re-impose Constitutional limits on the Federal government's powers. But the window of opportunity is short.

What can we do? There are six key steps:

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment, returning power to the States to obstruct the action of the Federal government when such action is detrimental to the rights and powers of the States.
   
2. Rework Social Security and Medicare to be State-funded and return those taxes to the States, mandating continuance for a limited time (say, 20 years), after which such programs would be voluntary on the part of the States. This would allow us to repeal the 16th Amendment, thus controlling the fiscal power of the Federal government. (There would be sufficient income from allowed sources to fund the rest of the Federal government, so far as I can tell, without the income tax.) There would then not be any need to forbid transfer payments, because there simply wouldn't be money to make them with.
   
3. Pass a Constitutional amendment forbidding States from compelling the votes of electors, and for good measure choose the Electors in years different from the Presidential elections, to minimize the chances of electors being chosen to vote for a specific candidate known in advance of their vote. For that matter, I'd be happy to see the power of nominating justices of the Supreme Court and lesser Federal courts given to the Electoral College. Strengthening the Electoral College, and removing immediate partisanship from the choice, would weaken the power of the political parties long-term, making more choices available to the people as a whole.
   
4. Pass laws limiting the power of Federal court decisions. In general, the idea would be to prevent a court decision from having automatic effect on anyone but the plaintiff and defendant in a particular case. While this would lead to quite a bit of re-litigation of contentious cases, it would also prevent an unelected oligarchy from determining the law quite apart from what the Congress passes as laws.
   
5. Transfer the regulatory functions of government from the executive to the Congress. If the Congress needs to maintain issues-based staffs to provide Congressmen with the highly-technical information need to, say, regulate hazardous wastes, that's fine. The Congress would still have to pass their recommendations into law. The current system gives far too much power to unelected bureaucrats.
   
6. Reform the process of setting House district boundaries, to prevent gerrymandering. This would ensure that people have real choices for their representatives, rather than faux choices where the election is actually decided in the primary.

While these changes might shock some people, in fact they by and large just return the US to a Constitutional system that is more like the original. In the process, the red state/blue state acrimony, and the problem of overly-freighted Federal elections causing bitter divides, would go away. Then, perhaps, we could dump the mindless partisanship and get back to working on what's best for the country as a whole.

A man can dream.

UPDATE (11/19): Francis Porretto makes a similar point, more eloquently.

The flaw that was created by its exclusion from the Constitution, by the way, was a process for bringing in new territories and States, and ensuring their reasonable governance. We were lucky here: when the prospect came up, it was under Thomas Jefferson, and the power of precedent has ensured that a reasonable system was created. It didn't have to be: we could have easily ended up with a system that would have led to colonialism in the US, and we are fortunate, given the history of other colonial powers, that our brief flirtation with colonialism during and after the Spanish-American War was so limited in time and scope.

Bilge

If a word is to have meaning as anything other than a synonym, it must indicate something different from other words. Derrida may have convinced a lot of people, but words still have meanings. To misuse a word to the point that the misuse becomes the meaning is to rob people of the ability to say a particular thought, and potentially of the ability to even have the thought. Today's word to protect is "mandate".

In the political - and specifically Presidential - sense, a mandate is not just an electoral victory. (Bill Clinton claiming a mandate with 43% of the vote, for example, assumes that victory is the same as "mandate". In fact, I seem to recall James Carville saying something to the effect of "One extra vote is a mandate". Rather, a mandate is an electoral victory so convincingly large that Congressmen feel the need to support the victor's policies or face electoral defeat themselves. Given that the Congress is, in fact, in Republican hands, there's not a mandate for President Bush: the Republicans would already have supported his policies; they are not compelled to do so by the magnitude of his victory.

President Bush, thankfully, refers to the political capital he has accumulated by winning convincingly, rather than calling his victory a mandate. If only Vice-President Cheney - and the media - were as careful with language.

And one other thing while we're at it, just to clear up a point of logic. The purpose of elections is not to hand power to one Party or another, but to pick those who will govern the country. The job of those picked is most emphatically not to set the stage for gaining more power in the next election, but to govern wisely and well.

When there is disunity in the country, and people seem pretty far apart (with the exception of the fringes, most Americans on both the Left and the Right and all the spectrum between tend to be pretty close in values and goals, if not in preferred methods), and there's been an election, it's the loser's job after the election to reach out and reconcile. If this is made the winner's responsibility, then the loser can make it impossible for the winner to succeed, just by not cooperating no matter what the winner does.

For example, President Bush in 2001 kept on Norm Mineta and George Tenet - both Democrats - in high-level positions, and sought other high-level Democrats for cabinet-level jobs; gave Ted Kennedy everything he wanted on education reform and Tom Daschle everything he wanted on prescription drug coverage by Medicare; renominated a bunch of Clinton's judicial nominees who hadn't yet been through the Senate; and backed off on some of his more controversial priorities (like Social Security reform). Not enough: the Democrats simply attacked him harder, sensing that President Bush was weak and would give them more.

This may feel good in the short term, and might have some chance of improving the loser's electoral odds next election, but it's not a recipe for cooperation, and certainly not for good governance. Since the winner cannot bow to the loser, except on minor points, without disregarding the wishes of most of the people who voted, it has to be the loser who moves the most. And the loser really has no reason to be surprised when the winner, thus rebuffed, changes from cooperation to simply trying to force his way on every issue.

Or, you can just bitch and whine. Your call, I guess.

The Most Painful Moment of Campaign 2008

That wasn't a typo. The most painful moment of the 2008 campaign for President will be watching a bunch of Democrat candidates trying to find "moral values" - and yes, I'm sure they'll say it with audible quotes.

Exeunt Democrats, Weeping, Stage Left

Both Fox and NBC have now called the election for President Bush, and by a good enough margin to likely withstand the lawyers. It's pretty clear that the election will go to Bush unless there is some very weird collection of circumstances.

To determine why the Democrats lost, start with this post I made in July, 2003. The Democrats weren't beaten like rented mules, but they were assuredly beaten. My fear is that the margin won't have been large enough to engender soul-searching on foreign policy by the Democrats.

The Democrats failed to come up with a serious policy on the war, and no other issue was more pressing to the electorate than the war. (The economy was close in importance, because relentlessly negative media coverage made the economy look much worse than it actually is.) That fundamental unseriousness in a serious time is why a miniscule ad buy from SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth knocked the Kerry campaign for a loop. The only reason that Kerry was even close is because near the end of the campaign he began to actually sound hawkish (though not convincingly to me, or, apparently, to the nation at large.)

And my predictions? I was expecting Bush to take 369EV, based on a formulaic approach. The debates didn't go the way that I expected, which flipped a lot of races I had as narrowly for Bush, to narrowly for Kerry. I called the winner, but gave him too much margin. I predicted President Bush at 52-58% of the popular vote, and he took what currently looks to be about 51%. Oh, well; this is hardly my day job.

On the House and Senate, I predicted the Republicans would gain 5-10 and 2 respectively. This compares respectively to +5 to +9 in the House and +2 to +4 in the Senate currently. I'm content with this prediction; not bad for an amateur. I'll look again in the morning and see how things look, but I think I'll end up pretty close on the Congress.

There will be plenty of analysis all around, so I'll avoid that (other than the above) and instead focus on what I won't be missing now that this is over.

• "Selected, not elected", "illegitimate" and the other meaningless slogans the Democrats used to keep from admitting that they flat-out lost in 2000
• divisive "two Americas" rhetoric
• arguments over Viet Nam
• President Bush's National Guard service records
• any celebrities who actually manage to leave the country this time (they keep promising)
• Iran's nuclear program, which I trust President Bush to deal with forthwith
• Falluja - ditto
• arguments about deliberate disenfranchisement of blacks in Florida
• John Edwards' smile, the one that makes you think he's about to go for your throat
• Dan Rather's smug assurance - crap, that'll be back next week
• election lawyers, I hope

But I voted for Kerry, before I voted against him.

Actually, no I didn't.

What I'm Watching - Good Election Resources

Of course, I'm a political junkie, so I'm watching multiple sites. Here they are:

CNN's Election Summary - In one page, graphical and text indicators of who has won which states, what electoral vote count and popular vote count and percentage; plus Senate, House and gubernatorial changes.

Election Projection's results page - Great place to track results against poll expectations.

MegaPundit's summary - A tabular representation of percentage votes by state, with percentage of precincts reporting in. (This is useful for knowing how certain the results are for a given state. Even if it's called, it should be remembered that rural and urban areas vote differently, and urban votes come in first, so close states can swing even after they are called.)

InstaPundit and VodkaPundit for commentary.

The Command Post for multi-source news extracts.

US Election Atlas for turnout figures.

I'm also listening to Fox News on the TV.

Acceptance

Bob Hayes at Let's Try Freedom has a simple pledge, that as far as I am concerned all Americans should take:

[T]he winner of the 2004 election is my President, and whether I like him or not, whether I agree with him or not, I'm not going to be a Michael Moore-style flaming gasbag asshat about it.

I was going to write something similar, but instead I'll just agree with Bob. I think that it is critical that we not repeat the mistakes of the past four years, by which I mainly mean that the party out of power has succumbed to Jane's Law and gone insane.

It is important, if we value Constitutional order - the rule of law rather than of men - in this nation, that we all accept the outcome of the election, work to ensure its reasonableness, and not attempt to destroy the opposition either during the election certification process or during the resulting term of office. There's a term for countries who don't value their Constitutional order more than their particular favorite parties/leaders, and who have elections: banana republic. Let's not become one.

UPDATE: And I deeply hope Paul is wrong.

You Get What You Vote For

I'm hearing a lot of people lately "reasoning" that Kerry will be just fine, because he "can't afford" to pull out of Iraq, "knows better" than to do so, or some other claptrap. I just have this to say: if John Kerry is elected president, it will be my fondest hope that he has noble goals for America and succeeds - particularly that he succeeds in defeating terrorism and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terror-supporting states.

But, and this is a rather large "but", I don't expect it. When Bill Clinton was running for President in 1992, it was obvious to anyone paying attention that he was a relentlessly self-obsessed womanizer and a compulsive liar. Whether or not you think he was a useful or effective president, it's pretty hard to deny he's exactly what he seemed like during the campaign.

Similarly, Kerry has been quite consistent on a few points of both policy and character. A Kerry administration would shrink from conflict where America's interests were at stake, would abandon our coalition partners and suck up to the French and Germans instead, and would give the UN an effective veto over US foreign policy. Kerry would shrink the military, stop or dramatically slow procurement of new weapons and equipment, hobble our intelligence services, allow Iran to get nuclear weapons and quite probably withdraw from Iraq before actually securing a victory there. Kerry would always choose bigger government and higher taxes over all other considerations, and would do his best to enact the most Leftist agenda ever attempted by a president. All the while, he would smugly enthuse about how all of us proles just don't understand his intelligence and nuance. Kerry will claim that everything good is his doing, personally, and everything bad is the failure of some underling or political opponent.

Go ahead and vote for him if you think that's best, but don't go acting all surprised later.

No Other Options

Mike at Cold Fury asks a few questions:

In the end, politics doesn’t rule my life, and if Kerry wins I’m not going to find myself out in the streets on November 3rd with a rifle sighted in on one of my countrymen and my finger slowly tightening on the trigger. I’ll be upset and disappointed about it, and I believe that we’ll all live to regret such an outcome, and I’ll go right on shouting at the wind from here about it just as I’ve been doing for the last three years. But that’s about as far as I’ll go. I can get along with just about anybody, and I have way too many liberal friends—close friends, real friends—to imagine for a moment going to war with them over any single election. But the question I’m really asking here is ultimately this: are there any conceivable circumstances under which I would do just that?

Are there any conceivable circumstances under which you would?

Are there any conceivable circumstances under which any of us would?

And…should there be?

And…what does it really say about us if we decide there aren’t?

It's actually one question, and one I've pondered a lot: how far would you go to be free?

To answer that, you first have to define "free". Most people think that you're either "free" or "not free". Not so. Freedom is a continuum. Are you, for example, "not free" if you cannot legally yell fire in a crowded theater? What if you can't yell "liar" at a corrupt politician?

Absolute freedom actually has a name, anarchy, and it comes with some problems: if your freedom is absolute, and my freedom is absolute, what do we do when you want my wife? Are we willing to have a society based upon warlordism and rule by strongmen? Because that's where anarchy gets you, and in short order. The lack of any freedom also has a name, tyranny, and one hopes its problems are obvious.

So the question is, on which issues will you compromise your freedoms to create a workable society, and on which will you not?

In theory, I'd prefer a society in which very, very little was forbidden to the individual citizens, and even less was legally (as opposed to morally) required of the individual citizens. Moreover, I'd prefer that the powers of government be somewhat limited at the local level, and become more limited as the scope of government widens, so that the Federal government has almost no powers. In other words, I'd be pretty happy with the situation as it was in the early- to mid-1800s, with a few exceptions (mostly slavery and voting rights provisions).

In practice, I'm willing to allow a lot without taking up arms. For example, I accept (unhappily) all of the following, rather than fighting for greater freedom: confiscatory taxation at unconscionable rates; unreasonable searches and seizures; violations of free speech, even free political speech; usurpation of legislative power by the courts; compelled disclosure of information to government officials on any number of pretexts; compulsory participation in a number of government schemes from health care to retirement savings; government interference in many areas of life that are just fine - better even - without that interference; limitations on gun rights; limitations on property rights; limitations on religious freedoms and a number of other examples.

Is there a line? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Is there a line? Yes, absolutely. You see, I've got nowhere else to go. If government becomes destructive of the ends of ensuring the liberty of the people, I cannot simply move elsewhere and be free. Canada is lovely; I enjoyed living in Calgary for half a year. I have a great affinity for Germany, and am sure I'd love Poland or the British Isles as well. But I could not be a citizen or subject of any of them, nor of Israel, nor even of Australia, and here is why: every other place on Earth is less free than the US, except for those places which are utter anarchies. I've got nowhere else to go that would improve upon my lot.

So what is the line? I will not stand for compulsory government service; impoverishing taxation; severe and persistent suppression of freedom of speech and the press; establishment of a State religion or forbidding the free practice of religion; the use of the military or Federal law enforcement against civilians who disagree, peacefully, with government politicians or policies; excessive regulation of freedom of assembly; widespread confiscation of property; abrogation of the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, with the government required to prove its case based on a high standard; or an attempt to surrender to a foreign power. Any of these would be sufficient cause for me to take up arms in defense of my freedoms. Less than that, I'd rather avoid another civil war.

You'll notice that I didn't put anything in there about elections and voting. There's a common misconception going around that representative selection of the government is the only "free" way to be governed. It's crap, of course: the purpose of government is not to give everyone a say in their own governance, but "to secure these [certain unalienable] rights [among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]". Any form of government that secures natural rights for all citizens is a worthy one, regardless of how it is selected.

Yes, it is a requirement that the governed consent, and that is why we have a second amendment: to allow for meaningful dissent from and if necessary forcible replacement of the government. ("Bushitler" placards are all well and good, but if the people waving those banners meant it and had any sense of self-worth, they'd kill any President they thought was making the US into a fascist state. The reason they don't, of course, is that they want the US to be a tyranny, as long as they are the ones in charge.)

But there is no requirement for elections per se. Rather, elections have simply proven a better means of ensuring that the government respects the rights of its citizens consistently than any other mechanism, including any number of forms of benevolent dictatorship and monarchism. If I felt that there was some council of wise men to whom I could hand power, who would be able to permit me more freedoms and not become an entrenched, kleptocratic, tyrannical dictatorship, I'd have no real objection to that method of governance.

Well, one objection: there simply aren't humans who could be given the keys of absolute rulership without becoming entrenched, kleptocratic and tyrannical. Heck, there aren't that many who can be given power over half a dozen subordinates without becoming entrenched, kleptocratic and tyrannical after a while.

Thus the beauty of a Republic: the government can be removed by the people, but are selected indirectly, so that it is not directly responsible to the people, and their waves of passion over events. Indeed, giving up the Republic with direct election of Senators and the near-direct election of the President was one of our gravest errors. Combined with the erosion of Federalism, it has meant that we are essentially a Democracy, and thus sliding towards mob rule. And the more powerful government becomes, the more we will trend in that direction. Which, by the way, is why elections are becoming so heated: there's way too much at stake, and it's effectively winner-take-all.

Anyway, I don't want to take up arms against my countrymen. I don't want to have to go through a civil war to be free, and ensure that my children are free. But if I had to, I would, because I've got nowhere else to go. Unless, of course, we manage to get off this rock, in which case I'll have another option.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Francis Porretto takes on comments by Rosie O'Donnell. If that's not the biggest rhetorical overmatch in years, I don't know what would top it.

Yearning for the Mud

John Kerry stands for nothing but election. Gerard van der Leun, in one of the most powerful essays of this political year, explains why.

Systemic Contempt

Stephen Green expresses, better than I myself could, why Democrats have lost my vote for anything until they reform themselves. Please read; it's important.

I still think that we'd be better off as a country if we pulled so much power away from the Federal government that national elections went back to being personally meaningless, but I guess I'd settle for us all at least following the general rules.

The Pagan Case for Re-Electing President Bush

Beliefnet is going to have two writers make the Pagan cases for the election of John Kerry and the re-election of George Bush. I would like to address the latter here.

It is difficult to make a generic Pagan case for voting for any candidate for office: Wicca is as different from Greek Reconstructionism (both Pagan religions) as Mormonism is from Wahabbist Islam (both Abrahamic religions). Different Pagan groups differ widely in their beliefs and morality, and thus on what issues are of import to them. For example, while Wiccans are extraordinarily concerned with the environment, this is hardly the case for Greek Reconstructionists. While I believe that George Bush's environmental record is actually quite good, when examined rather than blindly railed against, discussing the issue in detail is only of merit to a subset of Pagans.

There is one issue that is important for all Pagans: separation of church from State. On this issue, I believe that George Bush - who after all once said that he did not think Witchcraft was actually a religion - is easily portrayed in scary tones, but actually not at all dangerous. Why is this? Because President Bush believes in individual Liberty.

If the government has the power to regulate group social interactions (which is a characteristic policy position of collectivists), then the government's position on religion is dangerous: the government can determine which religions are valid and which are not, and can thus restrict religious freedom. But if government does not have the power to regulate group social interactions, then the government's position is irrelevant: the government cannot prohibit your exercise of religion, nor compel you to belong to a particular religion.

While you might think that the fact that the Constitutional language on religion is clear, the government has over the last 75 years taken to ignoring the Constitution regularly. For example, who could interpret "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" to mean that it is OK for Congress to make a law restricting the ability of citizens to advertise in support of or opposition to a particular candidate for public office? Recently, the Supreme Court did just that.

The practical upshot of this is that whomever holds power in the Federal government - and in particular the President and the majority leaders of both Congressional chambers - by and large determines the degree to which individual Liberty is upheld. While the President made a terrible error in signing McCain-Feingold, he has so far steered far away from interfering in religious issues, and is likely to continue to do so.

While Senator Kerry is not particularly a believer in individual Liberties, preferring the betterment of society as a whole, under his "benign" management, it is also true that Senator Kerry is quite unlikely to support any position that would restrict Pagan practices. (Always assuming, of course, that such a position wouldn't confer immediate political benefits to the Senator.)

So if neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry is likely to prohibit, restrict or regulate Pagan practices, and if Pagan beliefs are so divergent as to prohibit a single Pagan view of whose policies would be better, on what basis is a Pagan to choose their candidate for President?

We are not only Pagans, but Americans. As Americans, we are targeted by the jihadis for murder (actually, this is worse for Pagans, because what slim hopes of mercy a "person of the book" might have are nonexistent for Pagans). Who would do a better job of protecting us against the jihadis?

During the Clinton administration, we were attacked in 1993 at the World Trade Center, in 1995 and 1996 in Saudi Arabia, in 1998 at two of our African embassies, and in 2000 in Yemen. Our response to these attacks was sufficiently underwhelming that Osama bin Laden decided America would surrender to al Qaeda if only we were hit hard enough in America. The result of that limp response was 9/11. There has not been a successful terrorist attack in the United States in three years, despite repeated attempts. John Kerry wants to return to the pre-9/11 policy of treating terrorism as a crime, rather than an act of war.

We are not only Pagans, but parents. As parents, we are concerned about the safety of the community; we are concerned about the quality of our children's education and our ability to choose their educational course. Who will do a better job of providing our kids with a safe community and an accountable educational system?

The Democrats want to extend voting rights to felons. How will they secure our communities while coddling criminals? The Democrats are in the pocket of the teachers' unions, and oppose not only school choice and homeschooling, but even such minimal measures as accountable teachers and schools! How then can we trust the Democrats with our children's education? By contrast, the Republicans generally support homeschooling, have been trying very hard to get school choice programs in place, and have been the primary proponents of No Child Left Behind, which (while flawed in some ways) has been the most effective program yet devised to improve public education within its current structure.

We are not only Pagans, but taxpayers. We want to be sure that money we earn, we keep. We want to be sure that the government can do those things only government can do (such as providing for the common defense), and that beyond that government does not act. We want to control our own charitable giving, not to have money forcibly taken from us and given to others without our ability to control or direct the use of that money. Who will do a better job of ensuring that we keep as much of our money as possible?

President Bush has obtained four tax cuts in four years. Senator Kerry promises to raise taxes. President Bush believes that money we earn is ours, and Federal funding should be limited. Senator Kerry believes that the government should have the unilateral right to take as much money from us as it needs, in order to fund an ever-expanding list of handouts, many intended primarily as vote-buying schemes for his Party.

We are not only Pagans, but consumers. We want to be able to get the things we need of the quality we want at the lowest possible price. Who will best ensure that our economy works as efficiently as possible?

Senator Kerry believes in protectionism to aid the favored few. President Bush believes in free trade to benefit everyone. Senator Kerry rails against outsourcing as if jobs were a zero-sum game. President Bush praises economic efficiencies gained by moving unproductive and low-paying work to places where it can be done better and cheaper (and in the process, raising the average wages of the countries to which those jobs are outsourced as well as getting us cheaper goods, so that our money goes further). Senator Kerry thinks we are (or should be?) working in below-minimum wage industrial sweatshops. President Bush promotes the high-paying information economy.

I don't believe that President Bush is perfect, not by a long way. But I do believe that as Pagans, and Americans, and parents, and taxpayers, and consumers, that we will be much better served by four more years of President Bush's careful stewardship, than by four years of John Kerry's active misrule. And I do know that in this election, I will be voting for George Bush.

Debate Summary

Kerry did a better job than I expected. However, expect the ads within a few days showing him saying "I've never changed position on Iraq" followed by him stating multiple conflicting positions.

Bush did about what I expected. Not great; not terrible. Failed to put in a few zingers he could have. Shame that.

I should have had more to drink. I think I'll go fix that.

Kerry is a smarmy ass. Bush is not as articulate as he should be.

Kerry didn't do well enough, I think, to move the polls in his direction, which is disastrous for his campaign since he's behind. We'll find out in a few days.

Let's All Vote

Jonathan Freedland has written the latest in a series of calls for people from outside the US to get to vote in the US Presidential elections. (hat tip: Roger Simon) I won't include Mr. Freedland's "reasoning" - you can follow the link if you want to see it.

I was going to write up a long response, but Norman Geras has already done so, and it's a fine read, well beyond the scope I would have covered. Instead, I'll just make one short observation:

Anyone in the world can vote in the US Presidential (and other!) election in one of two ways: come to the US and become a citizen, or submit your country to US territorial rule and apply to the Congress for statehood.

If you're not willing to undertake the obligations of citizenship, don't expect the responsibilities and protections of citizenship.

Unacceptable

It is simply not acceptable for any American to:

• Dismiss as liars the leaders of countries we liberate from tyrants, when those leaders say that things are better now than they were under tyranny,
• attempt to convince allies to abandon support for the US,
• attempt to weaken support for the war in order to weaken support for the President,
• spread lies and calumnies about the President in order to undermine support for the war,
• denounce our friends and celebrate our enemies.

The Democrats in general, and the Kerry campaign in particular, have done all of these things. As a result, I am going to alter my normal voting pattern in yet another way¹: regardless of any other merits, I will not vote for a Democrat for any office - not even local offices - until the national Democrat Party pulls its head out of its ass. Even Democrats I would normally support (Zell Miller, David Boren, Joe Lieberman, some Texas Democrats for State offices) can abandon the Democrats for some other Party or forget it.

¹The last alteration was to no longer vote for Libertarians for any Federal office, on the grounds that they oppose defending ourselves abroad.

I Feel a Draft

Politics simultaneously repels and attracts me. On the one hand, there is a truly sordid and destructive aspect to our elections, where the attempts to destroy a candidate's political opponent drown out any kind of attempt to find the right way to move forward on the problems and opportunities that confront us. On the other hand, I love strategy, and there is a huge amount of strategy in campaigns: when and how to make what statements and proposals; which groups can be cleaved to your base or separated from your opponents; how to remove your opponent's ability to act without seeming ridiculous.

Frankly, Bush is a master politician. Where Clinton, also a master politician, used a bludgeon and a smile (Now, I wish I could say that my evil opponent who eats babies in his breakfast cereal agreed with me that motherhood and apple pie are good, but I just can't get over how he always disagrees with me on these fundamental decency issues.), Bush just smiles a lot, makes a few self-deprecating jokes, and then trips his opponents while they are running with knives. It never fails to amaze me when Bush lets his opponents go on for months about his National Guard service, for example, letting them build up an intricate and massive myth and sell, sell, sell it - only to then release all of his records that utterly demolish the myth in a way that wouldn't have happened if the "debate" hadn't moved beyond the purely technical aspects.

There is another opportunity that the Democrats are creating for Bush (besides this one) by pushing the draft idea. Brief recap: Democrats have been sponsoring bills and making statements that the draft will have to come back, then blaming George Bush for secretly planning to reinstate the draft. Dumb, but if you don't pay attention it might score points on the margins. The Democrats are pushing this harder now, with spam mailings to college kids that are frightening them and their parents.

But this is a very dangerous game, because it's pretty apparent that Selective Service will never again be used by the US, at least not in any forseeable future. So all Bush has to do is wait until this screeching becomes really noticable, then call for the abolition of the Selective Service. Something like this should do it:

"Democrats in the House and Senate, such as Charlie Rangel, have been calling for reinstituting the draft. Frankly, this is a dangerous idea. America's armed forces have been fighting our enemies around the world since we were viciously attacked on 9/11, and have done so with an amazingly small number of casualties, both of our forces and of the innocent women and children among which our enemies cower. This unprecedentedly low level of casualties is only possible because of the relentless and realistic training we instill in our long-service volunteers. This cannot be done with draftees, who leave the force just as they begin to become effective.

Really, though, it's worse than this. Since Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Congress started Selective Service registration in 1980, millions of young men have been compelled to register themselves with the Federal government, and the cost has been staggering. It is simply not possible to operate America's armed forces with draftees, and it's not moral to keep up the charade of registering young men for a draft that will never come.

And that is why I am asking the Congress to repeal the Selective Service Act and disband the draft boards forever."

Something like that, after the Democrats are in a frenzy about it, is the kind of thing that kills an opponent. Let their fangs grow long, then chop them off. It's what Bush excels at, and apparently the Democrats excel at falling for it. It'll be interesting to see where this goes.

UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted had similar thoughts last night.

UPDATE: John Hawkins succinctly addresses the possibility of a draft: "anyone who tells you there is going to be a draft is dumb as a brick or a liar who's trying to mislead you. In either case, if they tell you there's going to be a draft, you can safely stop paying attention to them."

Leadership Matters

Michael Totten makes the hawkish case for Kerry. It's pretty weak, as Totten himself admits:

A hawkish case for Kerry is a tough case to make. He's a weak candidate. There is no getting around it.

To see the benefits of a Kerry Administration you have to look past Kerry himself. If he is elected a critical cultural and political shift will dramatically change the way the Democratic Party behaves no matter what he actually does while in office.

The argument, in brief, is that if John Kerry is elected, the anti-war idiots will basically go home and be quiet, as they were during the Clinton administration, and let Kerry do whatever he wants. Since it is inevitable that we'll be attacked again, Kerry will be forced by events to respond in some way.

OK, this is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far. First, I don't think we want to be making political decisions based on whether or not the anarchists and anti-globalization guys are in the streets. There's a technical term for where that leads: mob rule.

Worse, it is a huge assumption to make that John Kerry would react robustly to an attack. While I don't believe that a major attack would be ignored, or even a relatively minor attack in the current climate, by a putative Kerry administration, I do not trust their instincts to respond adequately.

After all, Bill Clinton could be said to have responded robustly to the embassy attacks: he attacked some of bin Laden's training camps and a possibly al Qaeda-related chemical plant which may have been producing chemical weapons. (I'm certainly willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in such a case.) Further, Operation Desert Fox was a quite robust response to the provocations Saddam was making in the no-fly zones and by pushing out the UN inspectors who had been disarming him. Yet neither of these responses was adequate, as has been determined with the passage of time.

Worse, Kerry's public statements (to the extent you can extract a coherent narrative from them) are basically that the Iraq campaign was deeply wrong and the best thing we can do is to run away and give lip service to the new Iraqi government. Handling the War on Terror as an intelligence and law enforcement matter, and handling Iraq as not our problem, will not advance our security one bit; if anything they open us up to further attacks.

And worse, Kerry has ruled out pre-emption as a strategy for dealing with emerging issues. How, then, does he plan on handling Iran and preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons? Would he depend on the UN, after its ineffectiveness and irrelevance were demonstrated in Iraq and after the Oil for Food scandals? Or would he depend on the Europeans, whose reputations in foreign affairs also suffered from a deep unseriousness on Iraq, and who are similarly entangled in Iranian oil interests? Or, worst of all, would he depend on the Iranian Ayatollahs, who declared themselves our enemies decades ago and continually since then?

Frankly, I cannot conceive of a case where Kerry's response to an attack would be better than Bush's; nor can I determine a way in which his preventative approach would be more effective; nor can I determine a sequence of events that would somehow overcome the proven incompetence of the Democrats at handling international crises. This incompetence goes far beyond Kerry, deep into the heart of the Democrats' foreign policy thinking: the brain trust of the Democrats on foreign policy have moved out of the Democrat Party and into the Republican. There's a collective name for them, too: neocons.

The Democrats don't have a bench on this issue, which is why the last administration ended up with Madeleine Albright as SecState and Les Aspin as SecDef. If the best hawkish case for Kerry is to believe that a weak-charactered President and an inexperienced and (if Kerry's campaign staff picks are representative) sycophantic Cabinet will suddenly develop competence and a backbone when faced with a crisis, there's no real case to make.

UPDATE: See also the comments at Michael Totten's personal blog.

UPDATE: Actually, I should be clear. I think Totten did the Kerry campaign an excellent service. This article is actually the best case I've yet seen for Kerry as an acceptable candidate. I just don't buy it.

It Will Get Worse

With Kerry's standing in the polls rapidly tanking, and even once-solid Democrat states now up for grabs; having picked the lamest attack plan ever; with his supporters making ads that, as Michael Ubaldi points out, are a hairs breadth away from what sent Mildred Gillars to prison for treason, or just beginning to panic on the war; with his list of positions growing towards the infinite on any issue of note; facing a growing economy; with progress in the war of concern but not anywhere near inspiring panic; and with less than two months until the election; it is tempting to ask how Kerry's campaign could get any worse. Here's how: the Presidential debates are yet to happen. But won't that give the "intelligent, good debater, come-from-behind champion" a sure win over the "stupid, simple, cowboy who can't speak clearly at all"? Well, consider this:

MODERATOR: Senator Kerry, with Iraqi elections approaching in January and casualties among our soldiers rising continuously, will you bring our soldiers back from Iraq or continue the occupation?
KERRY: [actual answer does not matter]
MODERATOR: Mr. President?
BUSH: I would just like to know if that is the Senator's final answer, or if he needs a lifeline?

And there's game over. There is one thing - only one - that a politician cannot survive in a campaign: being the object of ridicule. And as with Dean's scream, Kerry's inconsistency on every issue has set him up to be an object of derision and scorn. All that's needed is a trigger, and Bush can pull it any time.

Change in National Debate Topics

If the new Gallup poll is close to accurate, it's time to stop debating "election issues" and start talking about how President Bush is going to use his second term to advance American interests.

UPDATE: Bigwig nails it - no pun intended.

Killing Yourself by Killing the Messenger

One of the things that has really struck me being in Chicago is the difference in the political/current events sections of the book stores. In Texas, you find 5 or 6 Noam Chomsky books and a book pointing out how wrong all of Chomsky's books are, a mix of opinions from across the spectrum, leaning slightly Left (primarily, I think, because more Left-leaning political books are published in general). In Chicago, it's Chomsky's entire catalog, plus Zinn, every copy whose title includes either "Bush" or "Republicans" combined with some variation of "Idiot" or "Liar" or "Pure Evil" and maybe one book that suggests that Republicans aren't actually evil, just deeply misguided and deserving of pity.

Well, now it makes more sense. In actual fact, I can kind of understand this on the part of the union: they're playing their political part. But, as with entertainers who shoot their mouths off on stage, there's a difference between what you do in your spare time and what you do on the job, and Borders should make a real effort at putting in place measures to identify and fire any of their employees who would so mistreat their property and their customers.

But on a deeper level, this is hurting the Left more than their opponents (they might go so far as to claim enemies). The sales of these books aren't dramatically reduced: the would-be buyers are just driven to go elsewhere to get their reading material. More importantly, what the Left ends up doing is directly harmful to itself, because they've put themselves in the position of third-world tyrants: by creating an echo chamber filled with like-minded voices where no dissent is tolerated, the Left never learns from its mistakes.

We see this all over today: in Dan Ra^ther's credibility melt down as much as in John Kerry's campaign melt down. It starts when you deny opinions different from yours are worthy of consideration. It grows when you deny that inconvenient facts are first relevant, and later even meaningful. It begins to take over when you cannot accept the obvious facts of the world around you, and you are denying everything good and praising everything evil because somehow - you don't know how - what's good for everyone is bad for your self-deception and what's bad for anyone is good for your self-deception and you've got a problem with maps, and you find yourself red-faced and shouting into a void where only your ideological equals can even hear you. And those who hear you, frankly, don't care any more. At that point, you are no more than a virus in the body politic, offering nothing but destruction.

It's a sort of ideological suicide, because you can't adapt to the world and it passes you by. The Republicans did this in the late 1980s and early- to mid-1990s, and it's why I'm not a Republican. Even though they eventually excised Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson from any position where they could do further harm, much damage had already been done.

The Democrats are now in this same position, and the lunatics have taken over. And no one is listening to Kerry, who by the way served in Viet Nam, who is not even talking to reporters (who by and large share his views), but sitting alone in the dark with maps of a great victory that will never be.

Tax Reform Proposal

Chaka Fattah, Representative of Pennsylvania's 2nd Congressional District, has proposed replacing the income tax system with a "transaction fee" - as far as I can tell, it's a VAT.

I don't know enough economics to compare VATs to other kinds of sales taxes, nor to determine if such taxes help or inhibit growth nor to what extent. With all of those disclaimers out of the way, I'd be very, very happy to see this proposal discussed. The income tax is a tyrannical way to generate government revenue, and inherently lacks limits. With both Republicans (including President Bush and Speaker Hastert) and Democrats now pushing for replacing the income tax with a better system, we might actually see movement on this in the next few years.

UPDATE: Reading through the bill, there are a couple of comments I have about this specific proposal. First, for all love please call it a tax! It's not a fee; it's a tax. Call it what it is.

It's actually not a proposal for a tax change, by the way. It's a proposal for a study to determine if it makes sense to change the tax system according to the set of guidelines laid out in the bill.

This bill does not actually propose a fee. Instead, it sets guidelines for the fee such that it would match the revenues generated in 1986. I'm not sure why that year was chosen; one would think you'd want to set the fee to match the last fiscal year before its passage. On the one hand, that's before recent tax rate changes, but it's also before the Internet boom and after Reagan's tax cuts. All in all, that might be a quite reasonable standard to use.

Sec.3(b)(4)(B) would have to go, I think. It's a list of suggestions for other uses of the fee. Proposing new programs and other reasons to generate more revenue - even good reasons like enforced paydown of the national debt - do not belong in a tax reform proposal. Those should be separately discussed, or they become stealthy ways of raising actual taxes.

I don't think you can exempt cash transactions less than $500 as a general category, because that would cause a shift in people's behavior that would reduce revenue with no real benefit. The better way to do it would be to exempt categories of spending, such as food and clothing purchases (and several others, I would imagine, such as charitable contributions) of less than $500. In reality, small cash transactions between individuals wouldn't get taxed, because they wouldn't be reported, but they could and should be collected by those entities currently collecting sales tax.

The problem, of course, is that as soon as you start adding exemptions, there's no real end to the exemptions that could be justified. In order to "protect the poor" you would have to exclude certain items, but drawing that line with so many special interests sending lobbyists and money to get their pet exemption, crafting reasonable exemptions would be very, very difficult.

I do like the idea of having a maximum rate of 1% for small transactions, but I'd prefer to see one rate above that, say a maximum of 3%. Otherwise, people will shift behavior for many large purchases, with deleterious economic effects. (Don't believe me? Go look up the "luxury tax" that was passed that killed domestic yacht building and new general aviation aircraft production. It was quickly repealed, but not quickly enough.)

Overall, I strongly approve of the idea of gathering the kind of information that the bill requires, including comparisons of economic impacts of this system versus the current system.

Blogs and Scandal

The CBS presentation of badly-forged memos as evidence to smear President Bush has been pulled in a lot of directions. On the part of the libertarian and Republican-aligned blogs, as well as more than a few sane Democrat-aligned blogs, the issue has been the veracity of the documents: if the documents are unreliable, the charges are unreliable and must be discarded. This is leading many of these blogs to question the reliability of all mainstream media reporting. CBS, and the far-Left bloggers, seem to want to ignore the evidence and get right to the discussion of how much of a liar George Bush is - never mind about "evidence."

I reject (as would any reasonable person) the idea that accusations are sufficient proof of wrongdoing, and evidence is immaterial. Facts are requisite to truth, if not to Truth (which is really just another word for religion). While I have quite a bit of interest in the media reliability angle (indeed, my previous posts on this issue have mostly centered on that), I'm actually more struck by the undiscussed ramification: the effect of blogging on creating and sustaining a scandal.

Blogs are new, coming into their own only after 9/11, and this is the first event with national implications in which blogs have played a key role. But why? After all, the precursors of blogs existed during, say, the Clinton impeachment. USENET, personal web pages and email all fulfilled the functions of collaboration (USENET), communication (email) and rich content provision (personal web pages), and certainly a lot of people were online by the late 1990s. But there are some key differences, some ways in which blogs enhance communications and opinion formation well beyond what earlier technologies could provide.

USENET provides a meeting place, ostensibly divided by topic, for a large number of people. This architecture has two problems (even ignoring the fact that USENET is only text-based) with forming opinion and filtering good information out of the stream, both of which are overcome by blogs: noise levels and specialization. USENET has so many people talking in one place that the useful information (signal) is drowned in useless information (noise). The high volume of useless information hides the useful information one might be trying to find, and filtering and searching mechanisms are not particularly well-developed. In addition, any given newsgroup addresses only a narrow topic, at least in theory, so it is unusual to find a typographic expert, for example, reading a newsgroup dedicated to discussing military memorandum formats, and vice versa.

Blogs are not structured around topics, by and large, but around personalities. The fact that Rand Simberg blogs primarily about space access doesn't mean that he won't indulge his other interests. Because of this, there is an immense cross-disciplinary polinization of ideas on blogs that doesn't occur in other formats. Experts in one field often read blogs written by experts in another, and find items that intrigue them. This sparks off a chain of discovery and allows far more broad and deep information to come together than, say, USENET does.

Further, blogs have both active and passive filtering mechanisms built into them. A blogger who proves untrustworthy loses his audience. A blogger who doesn't provide useful information does not gain, or cannot keep, his audience. InstaPundit and others act as a filter by pointing to interesting information on other blogs. Most blogs maintain blogrolls, directing users to related information. Bloggers link to each other (as well as to non-blog sources), and trackbacks further enhance the connectivity on related topics. The comment mechanisms on many blogs further enhance the discussion. Finally, the use of blogrolls tends to result in the formation of communities with related interests or worldviews, which enhances the information flow. In each of these mechanisms, the key point is that the blogger has to have something useful to say, or he gets filtered out of each of these mechanisms over time.

But USENET has another problem as well: it's text-based. Being unable to easily provide rich content, it is difficult to make a point which has visual elements. Consider trying to do this on USENET. Personal web pages, of course, can and still do provide this kind of rich content, but it is provided in an isolated medium. Yes, Google provides a way of finding this information, but it's not self-selecting in the way that blog links are. So while USENET provides great connectivity of information, but no filtering and no rich content, personal web pages provide very highly-filtered rich content, with no connectivity.

Email provides directed, highly-filtered connectivity, but is non-public, so only the sender and recipients ever see the content. And, again, this content is not easily made rich: it's primarily text-based. Trackbacks and links provide the openly-available two-way discussion path that email lacks. (And mailing lists, while more publically-available, frequently suffer from most of the drawbacks of USENET.)

Blogs, by providing all of these mechanisms, can do something that until now only television, newspapers and magazines could do: blogs provide rich content, publicly available, filtered and analyzed and readily found. It is this that makes blogs such a threat to mainstream media: blogs can do everything journalists can, but generally blogs bring a higher level of subject matter expertise to the topics they cover than can mainstream journalists.

Given this, what impact are blogs having, and will they have in the future, on political scandals and for that matter on campaigns in general? It is pretty clear that blogs are at the forefront of the CBS document forgeries. The history of the beginning of that story is largely told at the New York Post. Basically, after "Buckhead" at Free Republic raised a question, bloggers took off with it, calling in experts and making their own tests. This signals something critical: blogs are capable of killing a scandal if the sources are not absolutely accurate. There is simply too much expertise available when you start playing six degrees of separation for a scandal to get away with unnamed sources and innuendo any more.

This will make negative campaigning much more difficult in the future. The filtering mechanisms on blogs will drive partisans naturally into blogs with similar affinities, and these groups will eagerly pounce on anything provided by the other side. If the negative charges are factually false, they will be disproved in short order. On the other hand, if the charges are true, the scandal could grow more quickly than it has in the past. Remember, it was Matt Drudge who broke the Lewinsky scandal, and that was what amounts to a personal web page at the time, without a network of blogs and the experts they can bring to bear.

UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted is following another line of reasoning: using blog-like decentralized methods for intelligence analysis. It's certainly worth thinking about.

UPDATE (9/14): Read this post by Bill Quick at Daily Pundit, which has a well-reasoned take on the incentives of the mainstream media and the blogs. (hat tip: Kevin Murphy)

"The race is over – and we've got bigger problems than that"

The title is Democrat pollster Patrick Caddell, quoted at Powerline. I am actually not sure that he is correct: I suspect that the problem is more likely at CBS than at the Kerry campaign. That is, I suspect that the DNC and the Kerry campaign were not involved. (Purely, mind you, on the basis that I think that both the Kerry campaign and the DNC are venal, short-sighted and partisan, but not so ineradicably stupid as to forge documents implicating a sitting President.)

I will say that if these documents originated at the DNC or the Kerry campaign, Caddell is correct. In political terms alone, it's possible that the Democrats would lose pretty much every contested House and Senate election, as well as the Presidential election. In more fundamental terms, it's not inconceivable that the Democrat Party would schism over this, with someone like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman starting up an alternative Party.

Worst case for the Democrats would be if this were a result of Kerry bringing on the old Clinton hands, because that would almost certainly split the Party wide open.

But CBS? If I were a CBS shareholder, I'd be dropping stock as fast as the market could buy it, and at any price. With the audience drain that will likely occur, advertisers will be dumping them or bargaining down the rates, and it's not unlikely that Dan Rather will resign or be fired.

It's the coverup that kills you. And CBS is in on the coverup whether or not it was committed by CBS or by the Kerry campaign or the DNC.

Innoculation

Most everybody seems to be understanding the point of the current round of attacks on George Bush's Air National Guard service record differently than I do. Francis Porretto provides a case in point. The point, it seems to me, is not to denigrate Bush's service record to make Bush-as-President look bad, but to innoculate Kerry against charges about his service record. After all, if President Bush's record is less than honorable, who cares if John Kerry is exaggerating his service record?

Of course, this assumes that the media wants Kerry to win badly enough to manipulate stories in his favor, which we all know could not possibly happen with our objective (cough splutter - excuse me) "news" media.

There's a Slogan that Won't Work

Vote for John Kerry, the confused person who can't make up his mind.

(In fairness, if you follow the link to the article Glenn is quoting from, you get quite a whopper from President Bush as well. Yet another illustration of how difficult it is to speak extemporaneously before a crowd and not end up looking like a fool.)

Frank Rich Concedes the Election on Behalf of John Kerry

In an amazing bitter New York Times article (use BugMeNot to avoid intrusive registration), Frank Rich concedes the election to President Bush:

Don't believe anyone who says that this will soon fade, and that the election will henceforth turn on health-care policy or other wonkish debate. Any voter who's undecided by now in this polarized election isn't sitting around studying the fine points. In a time of fear, the only battle that matters is the broad-stroked cultural mano a mano over who's most macho. And so both parties built their weeklong infotainments on militarism and masculinity, from Mr. Kerry's toy-soldier "reporting for duty" salute in Boston to the special Madison Square Garden runway for Mr. Bush's acceptance speech, a giant phallus thrusting him into the nation's lap, or whatever.

Let me pause here for a brief aside on how interesting it is that the Democrats always seem to go for sexual imagery in describing non-sexual events, while at the same time bitterly wining about their equipment (by proxy with the imagery, of course). They must be really insecure for some reason. Anyway, breathe in the bitterness

Hence Mr. Bush was fronted by a testosterone-heavy lineup led by a former mayor who did not dally to read a children's book on 9/11, a senator who served in the Hanoi Hilton rather than the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard, and a governor who can play the role of a warrior on screen more convincingly than can a former Andover cheerleader gallivanting on an aircraft carrier.

[snip]

Mr. Bush implies that he just happened to slide on his own into one of the "several openings" for pilots in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 and that he continued to fly with his unit for "several years" after his initial service. This is fantasy

[snip]

Mr. Bush's imagineers have publicized his proud possession of Saddam Hussein's captured pistol, which, in another of their efforts at phallic stagecraft, is said to be kept in the same study where the previous incumbent squandered his own weapon of masculinity on Monica Lewinsky.

But with the high stakes of an election at hand, it's not enough to stuff socks in the president's flight suit. Mr. Kerry must be turned into a girl. Such castration warfare has been a Republican staple ever since Michael Dukakis provided the opening by dressing up like Snoopy to ride a tank. We've had Bill Clinton vilified as the stooge of a harridan wife and Al Gore as the puppet of the makeover artist Naomi Wolf. But given his actual history on the field of battle, this year's Democratic standard bearer would, seemingly, be immune to such attacks, especially from the camp of a candidate whose most daring feat of physical courage was tearing down the Princeton goalposts.

[snip]

The flaw in Mr. Kerry is not, as Washington wisdom has it, that he asked for trouble from the Swifties by bringing up Vietnam in the first place. Both his Vietnam service and Vietnam itself are entirely relevant to a campaign set against an unpopular and ineptly executed war in Iraq that was spawned by the executive branch in similarly cloudy circumstances. But having brought Vietnam up against the backdrop of our 2004 war, Mr. Kerry has nothing to say about it except that his service proves he's more manly than Mr. Bush. Well, nearly anyone is more manly than a president who didn't have the guts to visit with the 9/11 commission unaccompanied by a chaperone.

And so on. In any case, the Democrats have always eaten their own after a loss. It's just that this year, they seem to be starting early.

Mr. Green Endorses Barack Obama

Despite living in Chicago for most of a year, I don't know much about Barack Obama. I know that his original opponent, Jack Ryan, had his campaign implode over the most bizarre sex scandal ever (it involved no sex, and only himself and his then-wife). Obama seems to be a good speaker, but I've seen no policy reasons to think he'd be a good Senator.

On the other hand, I know a great deal about Alan Keyes, and wouldn't expect him to be a good candidate for any public office. But, really, I don't need to say why, because Mr. Green has certainly put it succinctly:

We endorse Obama for the sole reason that unlike Republican candidate Alan Keyes, Obama is not crazier than a shithouse rat.

Oh sure, there are lots of issues and such, but on the most important question, "Is this candidate totally and completely looney toons?", we believe that Obama fares much better than Keyes, who is absolutely batshit.

Obama for Senate: He's sane.

If I voted here, instead of just living here, I'd likely be voting 3rd party or write-in for Senate.

(hat tip: Baldilocks)

Not Yours to Give

Donald Sensing points to this startling anecdote about Davy Crockett. There is my problem with intrusive government summed up beautifully. What a shame, what a crying shame, that we pride ourselves on our liberties when we have allowed Congress and the courts to so usurp them that our representatives of only a little more than 100 years ago wouldn't recognize us as other than a happy tyranny.

Yes, That's it Exactly

Stephanie just summed up my thoughts about this election almost perfectly:

I watched the convention again last night.

And fell asleep in the middle of President Bush's speech. Yep, nodded right off.

The part I watched was okay. I understand that it got better when he started talking about foreign policy. I heard most of his domestic agenda. It was good to listen to, as I get so wrapped up in domestic security that I forget how much I actually disagree with the President. Ah, I remember now. Something about spending, spending, spending, funding, funding, funding ... legislating morality. ... Yes, that was it.

Still, the idea of Kerry winning sends chills of fear down my spine. Kerry, who is shocked and outraged that Dick Cheney has questioned his fitness to command. Good grief. This is an election. We're all supposed to question the candidates' fitness to command. Cheney, being the VP and in a position to know what it takes to be Commander in Chief, and a voter himself, has every right to question. That's the point! In an election, you do that!

I guess I can understand the outrage, though. It's not like John Kerry questions Bush's or Cheney's fitness to command the nation ... oh wait, they do? Hmmm. That's okay, though, because they're in office. And they're Bad Guys. Did I get it right? Am I getting the hang of this politics thing after all?

Here's the "almost" in "almost perfectly": she forgot to add that President Bush doesn't believe we should be able to question John Kerry's record either - or at least, not to spend money to question it on TV or radio - and to that end both signed McCain-Feingold (in an era of blatantly unconstitutional laws, this one still takes my breath away) and stated quite openly that he wanted all 527s banned. You know, those pesky organizations that aren't associated (theoretically) with any political party, who exist only for the purpose of gathering citizens' money together to broadcast their political opinions.

But I am a single issue voter: I'll worry about where the line is that would finally cause me to rise up in revolution against the government¹ after I make sure that my kids aren't going to get blown up on the bus.

UPDATE: And Lt. Smash lays out the Bush Doctrine - the only reason I'm voting for him - quite nicely.

UPDATE: And Susan Estrich lays out the reasons why if the war weren't going on, I'd be voting for a third party instead of the Democrats. One quote from Susan: "The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough." And another from a different Democrat, Molly Birnbaum: "Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole". I'd hate to see what they think is mean, unfair or a flat-out lie coming from a Democrat!

¹Hopefully "rise up" as in civil disobedience, and stating my opinion loudly. But if the government takes that option away, they should remember that we are still an armed society, and there is still enough hatred of tyranny here that a revolution is possible, as the Founders intended. I don't expect to see a violent revolution in my lifetime, but I do expect to see a time where widespread civil disobedience on the scale of the civil rights movement will be necessary.

Pride and Anger

After Zell Miller's impressive speech at the Republican convention, Chris Matthews attacked Miller, who came very close to demanding satisfaction. Senator Miller is from the South, and he's from the old Southern culture, which is an honor culture. Many people in the US and Europe don't understand honor cultures; they only know cultures of expedience that don't value reputation or respect, except maybe as talking points. They don't understand the role of pride, and assume that an insulted pride, and the rage and scorn it provokes, is nothing more than anger, and thus is unattractive and undisciplined.

Some people get it. Some people don't.

So, let's try to answer some questions, yes?

1. Why is Zell Miller so angry?

He's angry because the Democrat Party has abandoned him. His views used to be those of the Democrat mainstream, until honorable but misguided men like George McGovern and honorless and deeply foolish men like John Kerry destroyed the FDR/Truman/JFK tradition in the Party. Now, his views are considered by the Democrat mainstream to be so far beyond the pale that Miller can only be "vile, bigoted, evil" or "Darth Vader". So, not only have the Democrats abandoned beliefs once core to their Party - and still core to Senator Miller - they have made bitter accusations against him personally (long before his speech to the GOP convention) for not abandoning his beliefs.

2. OK, then why hasn't Miller switched to the Republicans? Why does he stay in the Democrat Party if he's so at odds with it.

Well, there appear to be two reasons for that: first, on domestic issues, he doesn't identify with Republicans (to about the same degree, as far as I can tell, as he disagrees with Democrats on foreign policy issues), and second, he apparently still feels loyalty to the people who brought him into the Democrat Party in the first place. If he changed Party, he would be abandoning them (presumably, at this point, their memory). I could be wrong on this, easily, but given Miller's background, personality and public statements, it seems to me to be a reasonable opinion.

3. Then he deserves what's coming to him!

Well, that is the very attitude that has him so insulted that he will openly call out a fellow Democrat and fellow Senator in public.

"The Democrats' Manic Obsession"

Political conventions in the post-Watergate era are mainly meaningless cheerleading events. Even before Watergate, moments of true importance (other than the selection of candidates) were rare. Next to Ronald Reagan's nominating speech for Barry Goldwater, though, I believe we may have to place Zell Miller's speech from last night's Republican convention. In much the same way that Reagan called upon the Republicans to discover their principles, so has Zell Miller called on the Democrats to discover theirs. Perhaps after they are trounced in November, they will listen. Here is the complete text:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

The Buck Stops Over There Somewhere

John Kerry's campaign is in enough trouble that they are already looking for scapegoats. Kerry, rather than uniting his staff around a common mission, is blaming them for the problems. Now, that's leadership.

Or something.

(hat tip to InstaPundit, who has much more)

My Electoral College Prediction

OK, I predicted that President Bush would take at least 360 votes in the electoral college. Here, via the calculator at the National Archives, is my result: Bush gets 369, Kerry gets 169.

Here is the result in visual form, using MyWorld's "visited states" map, since I couldn't find an electoral college calculator with a map that would export the map. Bush states are in Red, and Kerry states in White:

My logic is this: after months of the Bush campaign being essentially silent, and a huge media investment in John Kerry's campaign, the best Kerry can do is pull roughly even. The RNC is starting, and there will likely be a temporary shift of about 5-8 points in Bush's favor, which will fall to a 3% or so boost within a couple of weeks. The Bush campaign will begin heavy advertising and public appearances, and this will start to give a counter-argument to Senator Kerry's so-far almost unopposed campaign.

Kerry has no counter argument to make, really. Consider that the Swift Boat Vets have pushed the Kerry campaign almost into hysterics, with an ad buy 1% the size of the Democrat-inclined 527 groups combined ad buys. This inability to respond to reasoned arguments with reasoned arguments will not help against the experienced and canny Bush.

Combined with the debates, where Bush will almost certainly wipe the floor with Kerry (unless a very biased moderator is found), this will add up to a shift of 4-6% in Bush's favor by election day, assuming no major events between now and then. So I took the current standings, and shifted them 4 points towards Bush, to be conservative and account for what I expect to be massive Democrat fraud, giving ties to Bush since I used the low-end estimate for his polling gain, and then applying a fudge factor (for example, this method says Oregon will go to Bush, but I think it is more likely to go to Kerry). In every case of "fudge factor" doubt, I gave the state to Kerry except one: the governor's scandal in NJ will hurt the Democrats, who are already not as far ahead there as they'd like to be, and I think Bush will get a larger support gain there than anywhere else except New York (but he won't get enough to take New York).

This method leads to the map above.

UPDATE (9/12): Looks like the stable fall-off boost comes to about 4%+, a little better than expected.

Sleight of Hand

It is the job of the Democrat Party (and, apparently, the hobby of many Democrat partisans and doom-mongers among the press corps) to ensure that as much power as possible ends up in the hands of Democrats at any given time. (Seriously: the only reason that any political party exists, protests about "the good of the country" notwithstanding, is to maximize their power as a group.) As such, I would expect them to do anything and say anything if it would help them in that effort, and so naturally I expect the Democrats to trash Bush as much as possible, and to slip invalid criticisms in whenever possible on the off chance they'll stick. It's redirection: ignore the reality and watch this shiny thing. But I hate it when partisans assume we're all stupid.

President Bush was saying last month that the economy had "turned the corner," but the recovery he's counting on to help drive him to re-election Nov. 2 has hit some potholes lately.

In the past few weeks, job creation has stalled, oil prices have soared to record heights, and the overall economic recovery has slowed. Groups that track poverty and health insurance data say next week's annual Census Bureau figures are likely to show more Americans in poverty and without health insurance. [emphasis added]

Those numbers are for last year. If the economy has "turned the corner" from the recession and thus is improving (which recovery the Democrat partisans in and out of the MSM have been claiming didn't exist, but now have to acknowledge in order to claim that the recovery is over), then one would assume that things were bad last year, so that there was something to improve upon.

So, either the reporter (and the organizations making these claims) are utterly pig-ignorant and dumb as rocks, or they think we are. Given the rest of this hit piece, I'm guessing they think we're stupid.

Splitting Hairs, and Texans

There's an interesting discussion on Daly Thoughts about whether Texas should split into 5 states, as it is Constitutionally entitled to do. Four of the five states would almost certainly be Republican, with the fifth tending somewhat Democrat, so the Republicans would certainly have a short-term incentive in doing this. However, it won't happen.

As one commenter on Daly Thoughts noted, which state would get the Alamo? Besides, there's the fact that the things we love about Texas are usually things we love about Texas, not the particular part of the state that we are in. I love the smell of the prairie when the Spring winds are blowing, and the large amount of personal freedom that is granted and personal responsibility that is expected. I love the bluebonnets and the indian paintbrush. I love the attitude. I love the Alamo, and the Gulf coast, and the desert river with the dinosaur footprints fossilized in the riverbed. I love Austin. I love how everything is huge and new. I love the hills and trees in the trailing edge of the Ozarks. I love the way that the people are friendly and helpful. I love the almost universal patriotism and the limited whining. I love the longhorn cattle and the bison that are pastured, respectively, within two blocks and two miles of my house. I love the food. How much of this would remain in a state cut apart? Some of it, certainly, but not all.

I've thought about it - I suspect most Texans have - but I don't want to see it happen.

Goodbye, Illinois

The largest effect of Alan Keyes running for Senate in Illinois might be to ensure that President Bush has no hope of capturing Illinois. After going against his prior statements about only running for Senate for the state where you actually live (Keyes is from Maryland), Keyes is now supporting "reparations" for slavery. This position won't win the very conservative Keyes any votes among liberal blacks, who will vote for Barack Obama, but it will likely discourage conservatives from coming out to the polls. By depressing that turnout, Keyes makes it much more difficult for Bush to win Illinois (already a difficult - but not impossible - state for Bush).

John Kerry is a Fool

Evidence: if you knew that your service in Viet Nam was short; that your combat record was, while not dishonorable, open to question; that you claimed things over the years in relation to that combat record that were demonstrably false; that you yourself immediately after your time in Viet Nam called those whom you served with "war criminals" and worse; that you and your supporters accused the President, who served honorably in the National Guard (in a unit that had aircraft in Viet Nam at the time he joined it, and when he had tried to volunteer to serve in Viet Nam) of being AWOL, and in some cases even of desertion - if you knew all of these things, would you make your Viet Nam service the central issue in your campaign for president? If you did decide to make your service the central campaign issue, wouldn't you spend a little time figuring out answers to the accusations which would clearly come up?

John Kerry has made this the central theme of his campaign, and he has clearly not thought through how to respond to the inevitable critics.

On a more depressing note, it's possible that Kerry is not a fool, and that his military service is the most honorable and unquestionable part of his public life, despite serving as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, and as a Senator for 20 years. In either case, I may have been too pessimistic of George Bush's chances of re-election.

UPDATE: Or, maybe the Kerry campaign did plan for this. (Considering the partisan source (note the domain name, I hope they're wrong. This would be below any kind of dignity or shame.)

John Kerry's Political Epitaph

I believe that John Kerry's political epitaph may have been penned today by Marius of The Rostra:

So on the same day, John Kerry is telling us that he agrees that the use of force in Iraq was justified, and that he believes the war was unnecessary and entirely optional. Which is it? The frightening thing is this: we cannot and do not know the answer. There is nothing principled about it. The only principle is his own immediate political concern. Luckily for us, given his inability to mask his contradictions, he is a bad politician. A poor sophist.

I think that a putative President Kerry would be as disastrous for this country as President Carter's term was (and in much the same way), although without the consolation that Carter at least was an intelligent and honorable, though deeply misguided, man. Kerry seems to be campaigning on the honor and trustworthiness of the Clinton presidency, the dynamic public persona of the Dukakis campaign, and the foreign policy expertise of the Carter presidency.

While a Kerry presidency would not make me leave the country, it would certainly make me thoroughly reevaluate the value of working downtown in large cities. But I'm not really worried: Kerry is going to lose by a stunning margin.

The Honorable Thing to Do...

...is for Senator Shelby to resign. (hat tip: VodkaPundit) This kind of leak is no more defensible than Joe Wilson's or Sandy Berger's offenses (though probably less damaging than either of those cases), and if Shelby will not resign, the Senate should remove him. If the Senate also fails in its duty, the people of Alabama have a duty to vote him out at the next election he stands for.

Blood From a Stone

They say that strength and fortitude keeps a man from getting screwed; but the future raises so many doubts when you put it in but you can't get it out.

- The Hooters, Blood From a Stone

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is calling for replacing the income tax with some other system, probably the "fair tax", and in the process potentially eliminating the IRS.

Before I get to the specific possibilities of different types of alternative taxation, I'd like to approach this in a roundabout way (hey! if you've read this site for any time, you should have expected this!) and start with why we have an income tax in the first place, and why it's so horrible.

There are five characteristics that make the income tax horrible: it is intrusive, and breeds tyranny; it provides for unlimited Federal power; it cannot be avoided by reasonable changes in behavior; it spawns corruption and political favoritism; it distorts the economy and inhibits growth.

The income tax is not horrible because of the amount of money that is taken. The amount of money take is horrible, but it would be horrible to take that amount of money regardless of the system for extracting the money.

One problem with having an income tax is that it leads to extraordinary amounts of tyranny. Consider the following powers that the government has only because of the need to accurately collect income tax:

• The power to compel you and companies that may employ you to disclose the arrangements under which and the amounts which you are paid.
  
• The power to take money from you without your active participation.
  
• The power to fine you for not paying enough at the right times, even if you followed their rules on what to pay and when.
  
• The power to restrict the ways in which you spend your money, and the power to demand proof of how you've spent your money.
  
• The power to examine your financial records at will and without your knowledge, and frequently without any court order (such as going through your bank accounts).
  
• The power to charge you with a crime with no actual evidence, and compel you to prove your innocence.
  
• The power to compel you to participate in programs (such as Social Security) "for your benefit".
  
• The power to require you to identify yourself in virtually all major financial transactions, even those conducted in cash, using a national id number (your SSN).
  
• The power to control what benefits a company may offer and how it may fund them.
  
• The power to prevent you from moving your money overseas.
  
• The power to control ownership of publicly-traded companies.

All of these powers (and many others, equally as odious) are arrogated to the government because of the need to accurately collect a (very complicated) income tax. In sum, the government claims the right to control your finances in many, many particulars. Other forms of taxation could generate the same revenue for the government without the associated tyranny. Note that none of these factors changes with a flat tax, though it would be easier and cheaper to prepare tax returns.

Another problem with the income tax is the removal of limitations on Federal government action. I tend to date the end of the American Republic, and the beginning of the US as a Social Democratic nation, with the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, which destroyed two of the three primary practical limits on government power: limited income and limited political power (because the States, when they selected the Senators, jealously guarded their own interests). The third limit, by the way, was judicial conservatism, which was destroyed soon afterwards with the activists courts of the Depression and afterwards, and the willingness of the Congress and the people to allow their arrogations of power to stand.

With no ability for the States to check Federal spending, and with no ability for the people to avoid taxes (see below), the Federal government was suddenly able to intrude into virtually every aspect of individual life and of government at any level. Take roadbuilding and education as two examples: the Federal government can raise unlimited money, and can then use it to blackmail the States: either do such and so, or lose the money we are providing you for education or for road building. Thus was the national drinking age instituted. Thus have many dreadful changes in education been instituted. Thus, in short, has power been centralized and individual and State initiative stifled.

It used to be that taxation could be avoided. Assume the government were to put a tax on imports. Should that tax be oppressive, one could use domestic goods as a substitute, and thus avoid the tax. Non-direct taxes tend to be that way: you can avoid them by changing your behavior. With direct taxation, though, this is not possible, unless you choose to starve. (You can't even get out of this by growing your own food, because of property taxes on the land you would have to use to do so.) Since the tax is universal and unavoidable, government has no incentive to keep taxes reasonable. This is why taxation could grow to such levels, which is why in turn the Federal government could afford such massive and wasteful programs, which in turn demand higher tax rates.

With the large amount of income, and the utter intrusiveness, generated by the income tax, it became far more possible for the government to grant and revoke political favors. Consider as one example the wrangling each year over which tax benefits to grant to favored groups (buying their votes with our money), such as subsidies for farmers (which mostly go to large corporations). This is not really corruption, per se, though in certain cases it is corruption, for example where there is trading of subsidy or relief for campaign funds; but generally the problem is just that the public at large is taxed to favor particular groups.

On top of all of this, the income tax is bad for the economy. Again ignoring the size of the tax to be collected, the amount of money required to comply with the income tax is huge. I've seen estimates of $200 billion a year across the economy. Most of that is actually borne by companies; an individual's $60 tax prep program is minor, but companies can spend millions of dollars to avoid even larger amounts spent to pay fines. These corporate costs are passed on in the cost of goods and services, along with the actual tax paid. Merely reducing the cost of compliance with the code by simplification of the code adds huge amounts of "free" money back into the productive economy.

But not only is the economy dragged down somewhat by the costs of compliance, the remainder of the economy is distorted. Consider the subsidies: if a person is given money to produce, say, dairy products, wouldn't they produce more dairy products? Of course, which means that the supply of dairy products exceeds the natural demand, and the government is forced to allow prices to drop (thus resulting in no net gain to the dairy farmers), or to buy up the surplus product and warehouse it. Don't laugh, it happens.

So, if we are to eliminate the income tax, we have to have a system which eliminates or reduces these five effects (tyranny, unlimited Federal income/power, inability to avoid the tax, favoritism and economic drag) without adding offsetting bad effects.

I don't want to get too much into what is "politically possible," because if you don't ask, the answer's always no: I've seen too many "impossible" things done to credit that argument. (It's at about the same level of credibility as who is "electable" and who is not.) There is one argument, though, which I think is fairly incontrovertible: any system which puts a large burden on the poor - or can be made to appear as if it does to a person who is not paying attention - will fail politically: most Americans would not accept shifting the burden to the poor, and any plan which appears to do that would be rejected, along with the person who proposed it.

Another characteristic required of any replacement for income tax is that it must either be revenue-neutral, or must provide explicitly for the elimination of spending/programs. Given that the latter is unlikely as long as politicians seek power and bureaucrats seek to protect their "kingdoms", it's reasonable to only look at plans which are revenue-neutral.

So, that said, what are the options? Basically, you can only reasonably tax stores of value, or transactions involving stores of value. This means that you can tax things or events like physical property and other tangible assets, payment for services (including salary), sales and rentals, use of government-owned assets, use of government services, transfers of goods, and ownership or transfer of intellectual property grants. Taxing other things, at best, does no good, because the taxes are avoidable by using cash and not keeping records. Assuming you don't want to create tyranny, you want to avoid persecuting people over whether or not they've avoided reporting cash transactions.

Taking each of those items in turn:

• Physical property and tangible assets: Put simply, this is property tax. It taxes the value of physical goods and titles held by a person, more or less in return for the government's protections of one's rights to those goods and titles.

  Little tyranny is involved, because the government has to know what you possess in order to protect your property rights in any case. However, the government could easily become excessively intrusive about how property is registered, used and transferred. Any such tendency would have to be kept carefully in check, perhaps by allowing Federal governments to tax the States based on their total property valuation, and having the States collect the tax as appropriate.

  The tax is avoidable, because property can be sold or abandoned if the taxes exceed the value of the property or goods. Because it can be avoided, Federal power is limited (since raising the tax too high would result in people avoiding the tax, and thus lessening the government's revenue).

  Favoritism is possible, because property could be taxed differentially by such selectors as who owns the property (look, for example, at the local property tax breaks given to large corporations) or what the property is used for. However, the ability of people to avoid the tax (for example, by incorporating or divesting themselves of the property) would limit this in comparison to the income tax.

  The economy would still be distorted, to the extent that private property ownership would be discouraged in relation to other stores of value (like stocks or cash); on the other hand, this distortion is considerably less than that of income tax, because it touches fewer economic activities. In addition, the cost of compliance is relatively small: the property value must be assessed, and the appropriate tax rate applied, and that's it (as long as the Congress resists the power to make the rate schedule Byzantine).

  The tax is not regressive, and couldn't easily be portrayed as such, because inherently poorer people wouldn't own property with valuations as high as those of richer people. Finally, given the large amounts of property and their values, it would be fairly simple to keep the plan revenue neutral without taxing private property ownership out of reach.
  

• Payment for services (including salary): This is the income tax; it's what we are trying to avoid, for the reasons discussed above.
  
• Sales and rentals: Retail sales taxes are commonly used by local governments. The VAT (Value Added Tax), added at each stage of production, is somewhat like a sales tax, but takes place not only at the retail level, but whenever the good or service is transferred. VAT is much used in Europe.

  Sales taxes and VAT are not terribly intrusive, because they are anonymous. It's hard to tyrannize people when you don't know who they are.

  Sales taxes are self-limiting, because excessive rates cause reduced purchasing or switching to tax-preferred alternatives (such as used goods).

  Corruption is still possible in subsidies, but it's very difficult to give tax breaks to specific groups on sales taxes, so favoritism is much less of an issue.

  The economic distortion in this case would be to encourage savings and discourage consumption. I don't know enough about economics to determine how damaging this would be in comparison to the income tax. To some degree, this would be offset by the higher immediate incomes, which allows people to determine how to use their money, and thus how they will pay the tax. This is therefore likely to be less of a drag on the economy than the income tax currently is.

  The biggest argument against sales taxes and VATs are that they are regressive. Attempting to craft them as taxes on luxury goods has the effect of killing the market in that luxury good (they are purchased abroad and imported instead) while not bringing in net revenue. In general, it is likely that a VAT could be implemented over this objection, so long as it excludes food and fabric and is not charged at the retail level.

  It would be possible to make this tax revenue neutral, though it would require adjustments for several years as people's behavior changed in response to the initial implementations of the tax.
  

• Use of government-owned assets: These are generally called user fees. They are at best a very small part of the government's revenue stream. While these are, and will continue to be, employed, they do not form a part of the solution to eliminating the income tax.
  
• Use of government services: The Post Office charges for its services, as does the Fed, as does the Patent Office. However, this is at best an offset of the operating expenses of that particular service: how do you charge for, say, the Army as a part of fees on government services, when private-sector services could be procured instead at a much lower cost? Again, this is not part of a solution to eliminating the income tax.
  
• Transfers of goods: Import and export duties fall into this category. Otherwise, this doesn't differ markedly from sales taxes if you include VAT as a sales tax. I don't see this as being a major contributor to government revenue, though these taxes will continue to be imposed.
  
• Ownership or transfer of intellectual property grants: This amounts to a property tax, but with the problem that valuation is extraordinarily difficult. How much is Micky Mouse's copyright worth? How about the patent for a drug, when the patent will expire next year? Certainly, this kind of property could be taxed, but it would be a lot easier to tax this as sales, rather than valuation of the grant of the monopoly.

I know I treated some of those a little briefly, but really, the only two options to taxation of income which would potentially be revenue neutral would be taxation of property values and sales. Some combination of these two would have to be used to replace the income tax.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to tax the States relative to their GDP, and let them figure out how to raise money from their citizens. Of course, then the States would need Congressional representation, so they would have to regain the right to select their Senators. Hmmm...perhaps the real solution is to simply repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and let the government raise revenue by taxing the States proportionate to their population, GDP or some other meaningful measure.

Frankly, I'd be happy with some combination of property and sales taxes even if administered by the Federal government, as opposed to the income tax. If President Bush supports this, it won't change my vote for President, but it might change my vote for down-ballot elections.

Election Projection

OK, here are my guesses for the election. (Or, here is where I show how bad I am at predicting US elections - we'll decide after 11/2.)

The Republicans will gain 5-10 net seats in the House, mostly in Texas.

The Republicans will gain 2 net seats in the Senate.

George Bush will win the election with at least 52%, but certainly not more than 58%, of the popular vote, and will decisively win the electoral college, probably taking at least 360 electors.

When I have more time, I'll explain my reasoning for these projections.

Expat Yank Blows a Gasket

I mean that title in a good way.

Kerry's Foreign Policy

Actually, let me emphasize the point of this post on Kerry's probable foreign policy.

There are four components to undertaking an action: goal, strategy, plan and task. If agreement is not reached on the goal, the strategy to achieve the goal is meaningless to those who don't concur with the goal. Similarly, if the strategy is not agreed upon, then the plan is irrelevant at best. Changing goals requires changing strategies, which in turn requires changing plans.

For example, in the Cold War, the consensus goal, developed starting with Truman and Churchill, was that Communism represented a threat to the US and the West and had to be defeated. The strategy, developed soon after, was containment: the USSR and China would not be allowed to spread Communism further than it already had spread. (This is why Viet Nam was a lost war: Communism spread. The fact that S. Viet Nam was not a democracy was irrelevant to any measurement of victory.) In the Cold War, President Carter was judged largely on his failures in implementing that strategy. (Reagan, by the way, changed not just the strategy, but also the goal: from containment to economic collapse.)

Now, with the Terror Wars, history will likely start this period with the fall of the Shah of Iran, overlapping the end of the Cold War. But we did not even think of it as a war until 9/11, and some people (apparently including much of the policy wonks and high political officials of the Democrat Party) still do not see us as being at war in any meaningful sense. So the Presidents of this period, starting primarily with George H.W. Bush, will be judged in the end by their reaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism. Both Bush 41 and Clinton will be judged somewhat harshly for not seeing the rise of Islamist terrorism as the threat it is (though Clinton will likely suffer more, largely because both the end of the Cold War and Desert Storm occurred on Bush's watch): they did not grapple with the problem and espouse a goal.

Bush 43 has set a national goal: the destruction of terrorists with international reach and of all states which support such terrorists. The strategy is not entirely clear, but it seems that "shrinking the Gap" by democracy promotion in formerly terrorist supporting States, combined with absolute containment of nuclear proliferation beyond where it was at the start of the century, is the most likely contender. The Democrats will not help with the enumeration of a national strategy, because they fundamentally disagree with the goal that President Bush has set out.

For most Democrat leaders, Kerry clearly included, the national strategy in foreign policy is to use the military for showboating and tinkering around the margins, largely at the behest of the UN and Old Europe, and only when our national security interests are not truly on the line. The reason for this is that the Democrats largely do not have a foreign policy goal (that is seen as a distraction from the "real work" here at home on advancing towards Social(ist) Democracy in particular and Statism generally). To the extent the Democrat leaders have thought about foreign policy in positive terms (ie: what they will do rather than what the Republicans are doing wrong), they seem to be of the opinion that transnational progressivism - fundamentally the transfer of sovereignty from States to an international government - is the proper policy.

Because there is no agreement between Democrats and Republicans on the goals of foreign policy, there can be no agreement on strategy. And to some extent, the discussion of foreign policy right now is very disingenuous, because the Democrats don't agree with the Bush Doctrine goal (defeat the terrorists and States that sponsor them) but don't want to say so publicly because the public by and large agrees with that goal.

Here's the kicker: if President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that the strategy he has been following will work: we will have a much more stable and free Iraq in four years than now, and likely will have invaded Iran and/or Syria as well, and will have gone a great way to reducing terrorism; while if Kerry is elected, it is likely that we will be where we were at the end of the Carter administration: dispirited, wandering, leaderless and deeply in malaise - and will have suffered many, many more casualties than if we were actively making war on the terrorists.

Again, vote as if your life depends on it.

Trust Me

According to the Washington Post, John Kerry has a secret plan for withdrawal from Iraq (and thus for likely US catastrophe, but the article doesn't mention that). A secret plan? Let's not even start with the comparisons with Nixon, whose secret plan for US withdrawal from Viet Nam was to sell out our allies and snatch political defeat from the jaws of military victory. Let's look instead at what is known, or at least what is conveyed in the article, about Kerry's plan:

John F. Kerry pledged Sunday he would substantially reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq by the end of his first term in office but declined to offer any details of what he said is his plan to attract significantly more allied military and financial support there.

In interviews on television talk shows, the Democratic presidential nominee said that he saw no reason to send more troops to Iraq and that he would seek allied support to draw down U.S. forces there.

[snip]

"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."

[snip]

Kerry previously has discussed his desire to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq but declined to attach any timetable to that goal. He spoke more extensively about Iraq after his acceptance speech, suggesting he has an exit strategy.

[snip]

The Massachusetts senator said the administration had failed diplomatically, and he asserted that a change in presidents would produce more international support for the United States in Iraq.

"I think that a fresh start changes the equation . . . for leaders in other countries who have great difficulty right now associating themselves with our policy and with the United States because of the way this administration has burned those bridges," Kerry said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Kerry defended his and Edwards's votes against an $87 billion authorization for military and reconstruction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the Bush campaign has used repeatedly to question Kerry's commitment to U.S. forces. Kerry said he learned in Vietnam that presidents should not get a blank check for policies that do not work.

"We voted to change the policy," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We voted in order to get it right."

Kerry supported an amendment that would have paid for the $87 billion by reducing some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The amendment did not require significant policy changes.

[snip]

On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that.

Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country."

In principle, it's reasonable that a presidential candidate would not want to spell out many details in public, particularly when this involves possibly sensitive negotiations with other nations. It's also necessary, though, that the candidate convince the electorate that his policies are sound. In order to do so, the candidate must answer all of the following questions:

• How does my policy differ from that of my predecessor?
• What are the problems with my predecessor's policy?
• What parts of my predecessor's policy are improved on in my policy?
• How does my policy ensure that it does not result in worse outcomes than my predecessor's policy in other areas?

How does Kerry answer these questions? Not well, if at all. And when his answer is clear, it is frightening.

What the above makes clear is that John Kerry has no intent of winning the peace in Iraq. His goal is to withdraw our forces without regard to the end state in Iraq (that is what "exit strategy" means as distinct from "strategy to win the war"), to use disagreement with France and others as the rationale for this policy ("seek allied support to draw down U.S. forces" can have no other meaning, since we need no support to pull out or add our own forces and since France, et al, have no forces to add and no will to add them; only diplomatic cover about what good puppies we are can be forthcoming), and to blame President Bush for the inevitable defeat Kerry would have created ("Kerry accused President Bush of misleading the country before the war in Iraq, burning bridges with U.S. allies and having no plan to win peace.").

Kerry plans to lose, and the only reason he is saying it obliquely instead of outright is that he knows saying it outright would win him no votes and would lose him many. This is in easy accord to his past as a Viet Nam war protestor and with his past votes on military and intelligence matters, so it's not terribly surprising.

It would be terrible, though, if carried out, because we would have lost any chance of victory in the Terror Wars for a long time to come: our allies would not trust us any further, so forget about all of the countries currently contributing troops; opposing neutrals (like France, Germany and Russia) would give us nothing but scorn and contempt; our enemies would be proven right, and new terrorists would flock to the cause; our potential allies in any future intervention in the Arab/Muslim world would melt away, knowing they would be betrayed in the end.

That is why Kerry's answers to the four questions above amount to, "Trust me." Because if Kerry said what he plans in plain language, he would be finished politically.

This November, vote as if your life depends on it.

What if He's Right?

Here is a fantastic article from Esquire, written by Tom Junod, about George Bush:

The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it's easier than conviction.

[snip]

We were attacked three years ago, without warning or predicate event. The attack was not a gesture of heroic resistance nor the offshoot of some bright utopian resolve, but the very flower of a movement that delights in the potential for martyrdom expressed in the squalls of the newly born. It is a movement that is about death—that honors death, that loves death, that fetishizes death, that worships death, that seeks to accomplish death wherever it can, on a scale both intimate and global—and if it does not warrant the expenditure of what the self-important have taken to calling "blood and treasure," then what does? Slavery? Fascism? Genocide? Let's not flatter ourselves: If we do not find it within ourselves to identify the terrorism inspired by radical Islam as an unequivocal evil—and to pronounce ourselves morally superior to it—then we have lost the ability to identify any evil at all, and our democracy is not only diminished, it dissolves into the meaninglessness of privilege.

[snip]

Iraq might be a lost cause. It might be a disaster unmitigated and unprecedented. But if we permit ourselves to look at it the way the Republicans look at it—as a historical cause rather than just a cause assumed to be lost—we might be persuaded to see that it's history's judgment that matters, not ours. The United States, at this writing, has been in Iraq fifteen months. At the same point in the Civil War, Lincoln faced, well, a disaster unmitigated and unprecedented. He was losing. He didn't lose, at least in part because he was able to both inspire and draw on the kind of moral absolutism necessary to win wars. Bush has been unable to do the same, at least in part because he is undercut by evidence of his own dishonesty, but also because moral absolutism is nearly impossible to sustain in the glare of a twenty-four-hour news cycle. In a nation incapable of feeling any but the freshest wounds, Bush cannot seek to inspire moral absolutism without his moral absolutism becoming itself an issue—indeed, the issue. He cannot seek to engender certainty without being accused of sowing disarray. And he cannot speak the barest terms necessary for victory in any war—that we will stay the course, through good or through ill, because our cause is right and just, and God is on our side—without inspiring a goodly number of his constituents to aspire to the moral prestige of surrender.

Michael Totten is looking for the liberal case for President Bush. I think this one may be it.

No Good Fit

Aubrey sums up my political affiliation in one paragraph of a post on one reason why polls are unreliable:

I don’t fit in any political party anymore. I can’t stand the Democrat party. The morality police wing of the Republican party pisses me off so much that the tent really isn’t big enough for them and me at the same time. I fell out with the Libertarian party after 9/11, when they adopted a blame America approach.

That's it exactly.

"Innovations" in Voting

Electronically-tallied voting is very, very useful, because it's quite fast. Texas used to have a near-ideal system: a paper ballot was marked by drawing straight lines to complete arrows, and an optical scanner read down the center of the arrows, synchronized to the location on the page by markings along the edges. It was fast, it was accurate, and it preserved a paper record of each vote.

Most recent voting "innovations" have been pretty bad, though. I include in the list of "bad" - for our Republic - innovations: direct election of pretty much every officer of government, motor voter laws, letting felons vote, letting non-citizens vote, letting people with no other vested stake in society (property, dependent children, corporate ownership, prior service or what have you) vote, not checking IDs against rolls at the polling places, "simplified" absentee balloting (no proof of identity required), lowered voting ages, federal funding of campaigns, campaign finance restrictions, ballot access restrictions and increased regulations allowing technicalities to disqualify legally-cast votes.

All of these fall into one of three categories: they reduce choice in candidates, give people a vote where they will suffer little ill effect if they vote badly, and/or increase fraud/reducing reliability. The current generation of computerized voting machines falls into the latter category, and the first lawsuit attempting to demonstrate this has been filed. (And with the evidence so far, it's looking like November and December, 2004 are going to be every bit as interesting as November and December, 2000.)

We Have Always Been at War with Oceana

Presented without comment.

Blood in the Water

After November, it is going to be an interesting spectator sport watching the Democrats self-destruct.

If Kerry wins, especially if the Democrats are able to gain control of the Senate or (less likely) the House, there will be a period of calm and celebration. But this will be followed by the Kerry administration fighting all of the myriad factions in the Democrat Party which will by trying to get theirs while the getting is good. In particular, a weak foreign policy team and an agenda-driven domestic policy team - the Clinton administration without Clinton's leadership or political skills - will pull the administration apart in factional infighting, making it almost impossible for a President Kerry to actually govern. This is not a good thing.

If, in the more likely case, Kerry loses, and the Democrats fail to gain either the House or the Senate, the spasms will be immediate and gory. It is normal for Democrats to eat their own, but in this case there will be what amounts to a factional war in the Democrat Party, with the DLCers (the Clinton wing) and the radical Leftists (the various activists) turning their focus (at least for a while) from bashing President Bush to blaming each other for the party's defeat. This will be followed by an even more strident campaign four years later. This also is not good, primarily because the Republicans will grow fat, dumb and happy with a virtually assured 8 years in the White House and no reasonable opposition domestically (name-calling is not reasonable opposition). During this period of war, we need at least two, and preferably more, serious parties in contention.

In either case, though, it's going to be bloody factional warfare in the Democrat Party for the next couple of years. Turn on C-SPAN and grab a beer; it's going to be a long show.

How Many Ways to get to What You Want

Francis Porretto has a brief post on his blog Eternity Road, and a more developed essay at the Palace of Reason, which together address anarchy as a form of human governance in (respectively) international and US contexts. The former got me thinking about this topic (admittedly, that's not hard since political systems and structures is a particular interest of mine) while the latter got me to post this.

Anarchy is very appealing to idealists, because it is undeniable that in anarchy there is absolute freedom: if there is no one to coerce your behavior, nor to forbid it, then you can do what you want, according only to your own moral decisions. Who will stop you from dancing naked in the streets - even if you are ugly and decrepit and smelly - if there is no one with more authority than you? Who indeed...

Anarchy is inherently unstable among humans, for the same reason that Communism fails: humans have an inherent drive to improve their positions, and very few of us have the ability to control that drive when the opportunity presents itself to improve our positions at the expense of others - particularly others we don't actually know. In an anarchy, there is no controlling power. As a result, your ability to dance naked in the streets is not constrained by any constituted authority, but by anyone at all who is annoyed by you and capable of stopping you. Similarly, in an anarchy you must always be prepared to use armed force to defend your property because anyone could at any time come to take that property for himself.

The inevitable result is that an anarchy first compels individuals to arm to protect themselves from thugs, then thugs to form gangs, which evolve into tyrannies of various kinds. Communism does the same thing, because everyone is theoretically equal, but only a few wield the power of the State to use armed force, and thus you know in advance who the armed gang will be that forms the tyranny.

Basically, absolute freedom is impossible, because someone will come along to take that away from you, unless you cede to some group the ability to protect you from thugs, which cession itself imposes restrictions upon your absolute freedom. The US was an experiment: how close can humans get to anarchy without slipping into tyranny?

The Continental Congress set up a system initially which gave all power to the individual States, and that failed because there was no central system with enough power to act, thus coming dangerously close to societal breakup over interstate rivalries. The solution - the brilliant solution - envisioned by the Constitutional Convention was to give the Federal government power to regulate relations between individual states, and between the United States collectively and other States. In every other case power was devolved explicitly to the States (see amendment X to the Constitution), and if the States individually did not exercise that power, to the citizens of the States.

There was but one flaw in their system: the Founders never envisioned that the people they put in control - propertied elites, to be blunt about it - would elect to remove themselves from power, or act against their own self-interest. And yet they did, in response to the Progressive movement of the latter decade of the 19th century. The result was the two fundamental checks to government power - limited finances and limited power - were destroyed with amendments XVI and XVII respectively. Since that time, the United States has moved further from the most possible freedom consistent with good social order, towards more dependence of the individual on the Federal government.

So the question arises: how can one create a society which is as free as possible, without having the tendency to slide into tyranny? I think there is a way, and it's close to the original US Constitution in wording, though somewhat different in basis.

Assume that sovereignty is vested in each individual person, rather than each individual State, and that certain powers are granted by individuals to the various levels of government above them. This could be done with no almost no changes in wording to the original Constitution. However, there is a fundamental difference: if sovereignty is vested in the individual, then a supermajority of individuals would be required to give powers to cities, a supermajority of cities to give powers to States, a supermajority of States to give powers to the Federal government, and a supermajority of national governments to give powers to international governing bodies. As such, the Federal government could not arbitrarily arrogate powers to itself, because those powers inherently belong to a lower-level organization or to individual citizens.

Structurally, this would require a change in the court system - a weakening of precedent or a limitation of the effect of rulings to the defendants in a particular case - but would not require any other changes in the basic structure of government laid out in the Constitution.

Would it work? Well, it's impossible to be certain without trying it, but I think it's logically sound.

Eleanor Clift's Leftist Polemics

Mark notes this Newsweek editorial by Eleanor Clift. It's really a review of yet another book claiming Republicans are venal, racist and possibly evil (you can find dozens of such books in any bookstore in Chicago, I assure you) - preaching to the hard-Left faithful, in other words. The interesting thing about this editorial to me is that, in calling for the Republicans to stop their "culture war" - by which she means appealing to decent values - Clift makes a naked appeal to class warfare ("blue-collar workers in economically depressed regions who should be Democrats vote Republican" and "the Democratic Party is more in tune with the economic interests of these left-behind workers" and "Howard Dean challenged Southern voters to move beyond the cultural symbols of a Confederate flag on the back of their pickup truck to identify their economic self-interest, which is better represented by the Democratic Party").

For a certain period of time, starting with the Great Depression and ending in the 1980s as that generation began dying out and as the US moved away from a primarily industrial economy towards a service-based economy, this kind of semi-Marxist appeal worked for the Democrats. It's interesting that Clift has no new ideas on how to appeal to a large part of America; all she is left with is calumny and slander and shaking her head in sadness.

But really, it's typical of her ideologically-based blindness on political implications in general. For example, she has recently argued that Kerry picked Edwards because he "needs someone to make the campaign more fun" (as if 9/11 never happened) and in another bizarre polemic that attacking Iraq "emboldened Iran and North Korea, regimes far more dangerous to U.S. interests", as a result of which "the Iranian nuclear program is much further along than we realized, and the mullahs are in a strong position, having just rigged their own election" (as if the Iranians and N. Koreans weren't working on those programs well before we ever elected George Bush).

Well, Eleanor, don't let the door hit you on the way out of power. Oh, wait, you guys are already out of power. From the looks of these "thoughts", you'll be there for a long time.

The Hard Hats

I hope we don't look back on 2004 as we look back on 1968. I don't want to see the riots or the hatred or the disintegration. I don't want the aftermath. I'm afraid that Jim is right, and I really hope he's not.

Game. Set. Match.

Best answer ever:

When a reporter noted that Edwards was being described as "charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy" and then asked "How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?" the president immediately responded, "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"

Kill Them All

Apparently, 10 Democrats in Congress want to call in UN election monitors in the next Presidential election. (hat tip: Peeve Farm) I have two thoughts:

1. Clearly, the Democrats want to throw doubt on this election, as they did on the last one, so that if they lose, they can claim that it is because the process is flawed, rather than themselves. However, it is the Congress, of which these - people is too strong a term - are a part, which is charged with ensuring the integrity of the process. If they do not feel that they can do so, they need to be removed from office. Further, they need to be dragged through the streets behind a car to show others that destroying the oldest representative government in the world will simply not be tolerated; and it is the case that deliberately calling into question the concept of our elections is intended to call into question the concept of our elections.
   
2. Powder blue helmets are an easy target.

I'm too angry to write more, so I'll leave it at that.

Five Minutes can Save Soldiers' Lives

There is a bill which has been referred to the Senate, HR 4323, which would provide the Defense Department with the ability to rapidly acquire equipment needed to prevent deaths in a combat zone. (Hat tip: BLACKFIVE) This would not cost any money, since it applies to money already budgeted; would not be allowed except to provide equipment which, had it been available, would have saved a life that was instead lost; and essentially consists of allowing the SecDef to bypass contract competition, setasides for minority contractors, and a formal requirements process. In other words, this incredibly-short bill would, at no cost, strip away a lot of red tape that is keeping our soldiers inadequately equipped for some situations.

Please, please, call Senator Warner (armed services committee) or your Senators to let them know that this bill is badly needed now. And be polite and respectful when you do.

Here is the bill's full text:

HR 4323 RFS 




108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4323

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 15, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AN ACT

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies. 



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO COMBAT EMERGENCIES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 141 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2410p. Rapid acquisition authority to respond to combat emergencies

`(a) RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY- The Secretary of Defense may rapidly acquire, in accordance with this section, equipment needed by a combatant commander to eliminate a combat capability deficiency that has resulted in combat fatalities.

`(b) PROCESS FOR RAPID ACQUISITION- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of Defense shall develop a process for the rapid acquisition authority provided by subsection (a) and submit to Congress a detailed explanation of the process, including procedures to be followed in carrying out the process. The process shall provide for the following:

`(1) A requirement that the process may be used only to acquire the minimum amount of equipment needed until the needs of the combatant commander can be fulfilled under existing acquisition statutes, policies, directives, and regulations.

`(2) A goal of awarding a contract for the equipment within 15 days after receipt of a request from a commander.

`(3) In a case in which the equipment cannot be acquired without an extensive delay, a requirement for an interim solution to minimize the combat capability deficiency and combat fatalities until the equipment can be acquired.

`(4) Waiver of the applicability of all policies, directives, and regulations related to--

`(A) the establishment of the requirement for the equipment;

`(B) the research, development, test, and evaluation of the equipment; and

`(C) the solicitation and selection of sources, and the award of the contract, for procurement of the equipment.

`(5) Such other procedures or requirements as the Secretary considers appropriate.

`(c) WAIVER OF CERTAIN STATUTES- For purposes of exercising the authority provided by subsection (a) with respect to equipment, laws relating to the following shall not apply:

`(A) The establishment of the requirement for the equipment.

`(B) The research, development, test, and evaluation of the equipment.

`(C) The solicitation and selection of sources, and the award of the contract, for procurement of the equipment.

`(d) LIMITATIONS- The rapid acquisition authority provided by subsection (a) may be used only--

`(1) after the Secretary of Defense, without delegation, determines in writing that there exists a combat capability deficiency that has resulted in combat fatalities; and

`(2) to acquire equipment in an amount aggregating not more than $100,000,000 during a fiscal year.

`(e) SOURCE OF FUNDS- For acquisitions under this section to be made during any fiscal year, the Secretary may use any funds made available to the Department of Defense for that fiscal year.

`(f) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS AFTER EACH USE OF AUTHORITY- The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees within 15 days after each use of the authority provided by subsection (a). Each such notice shall identify the equipment to be acquired, the amount to be expended for such acquisition, and the source of funds for such acquisition.

`(g) COMBATANT COMMANDER- In this section, the term `combatant commander' means the commander of a unified combatant command with authority for the conduct of operations in a specific area of responsibility or who otherwise has authority to conduct operations at the direction of the President or Secretary of Defense.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2410p. Rapid acquisition authority to respond to combat emergencies.'.

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2004. 

Attest: 

JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 

END

Edging Towards Socialist "Utopia"

So, the People's Democratic Republic of King County, Washington want to make it so that you can't use your land as you see fit. (I don't suppose that you'll be allowed to pay only 10% of your property taxes, since you can only build on 10% of your land? Nah, that doesn't serve the common good at all.)This taking is unconstitutional by any reasonable reading. Sadly, the Supreme Court apparently can't read.

Amendment V

No person shall be [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Common Good

Hillary Clinton, at a fund-raiser in California, said this:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

That about sums up why I am forced to support Republicans so frequently: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

I despair over many of the Republicans' agenda items - particularly the religiously-motivated ones - and find President Bush to be a less-than-stellar standard-bearer for Reagan's legacy, particularly since he has allowed government to grow larger and more intrusive with bare lip service to stopping it. At least Bush's character is good: he's not a thief and he's not an egregious liar and he's determined to defend the US against its enemies.

But as long as this is the attitude of the Democrats, I cannot support them at all. Hillary Clinton wants to take things from me to give to others. She wants to decide whom to take from, and what to take. She wants to decide whom to give to, and how much to give. And our existence, in her universe, is to sit back and be quiet, so that she can get on with it. She wants my money, because she feels entitled to it. Even disregarding the kind of corruption that breeds, what makes her think that she knows the common good so well that she can magnanimously spread only good? Has she learned nothing from history? Does she know nothing of economics or psychology? Has she even read the Constitution?

Stupid questions, of course, she knows nothing, and thinks she knows everything, and the mere fact of my disagreement with her agenda is proof that I'm a terrible horrible person who is stupid and smirks like a chimp and kills babies and - bah! Enough! No voting for Democrats until the Republicans start posting guards inside my bedroom or outlawing non-Christian religions!

Cheney's outburst was mild in comparison to what I'm not typing right now.

UPDATE: Steven Bainbridge has thoughts on this, along with a couple of good quotes.

Time to Invoke Godwin's Law

The other day, in comments to this post, I castigated the Bush administration for putting out an ad which had shots of Hitler, alongside shots of several prominent Democrats. Yes, the shots of Hitler are from MoveOn (a Democrat advocacy group) comparing President Bush to Hitler, but by using such short clips of them, the association is naturally between Hitler and the Democrats. Sure, it's defensible, but we're not stupid and we can tell the intent was to take advantage of the association while being able to deny it.

However, the Democrats' response is astonishing. I got a letter from the DNC, and apparently the Kerry campaign is sending other ones, criticizing Bush for comparing Democrats to Hitler. Yes, I realize this is basically the charge I make as well, but it's disingenuous at best to castigate one's political opponents for doing something wrong, when what they are doing is showing clips of you doing the things you are accusing them of! In other words, the Democrats are saying the clips from their own advocates are morally wrong, and that is somehow the Republicans' fault. Gah! I would go on at some length, but Josh Chafetz saves me the trouble.

Now We're ALL NAZIs?

Al Gore yesterday called anyone who doesn't agree with his policy ideas, and posts about it online, "digital Brown Shirts":

In an hour-long address punctuated by polite laughter and applause, Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

Note that Reuters' focus was on what Gore was accusing the Bush administration of, rather than what he is accusing me and thousands of his fellow citizens of: Al Gore called all of those who write about politics online, and who disagree with Gore's political views, Brown Shirts.

Should the reference escape you, the Brown Shirts were NAZI enforcers - street thugs, really, who beat up Jews and Communists and opponents of Hitler, sent kids to concentration camps and basically did the dirty work of the NAZI party prior to the rise of the SS.

What bugs me most about this, actually, is not even that Al Gore is calling me a NAZI, per se. What bothers me is that Al Gore; and people who write Bushitler, Bush=Hitler and so forth; are cheapening the inhumanity and tyranny of the NAZIs. You see, if Bush and the NAZIs are alike, then the NAZIs weren't brutal tyrants who gassed and shot and worked to death over 6 million people while starting a war that consumed some 20 million people; instead, the NAZIs just disagree with "right-thinking people" about the growth rate of government spending.

Erasing the memory of the NAZIs (or the Communists, if you want to think of this from the other side of the aisle) is dangerous: what happens if a true fascist tyrant begins to assume power in the US? What can you call him? How can you get your message out? How do you warn those who are ignorant of history what their future may hold if they are incautious?

The real result of Al Gore's insults is that it shows how careless he is with the freedom and values we all care about (or at least say we do). Maybe I shouldn't have written any of this, since Lileks already said it better:

[T]oday Al Gore upped the ante. He coined a new term for the Internet critics of his positions: digital brownshirts. Yes, yes, it’s over the top. But it’s not the sentiment that raises eyebrows, it’s the position of the person who’s saying it. We don’t expect presidential candidates past or present to indulge in Usenet flame-war lingo. We don’t expect serious party elders to call the other side Nazis, and for good reason: it’s obscene. The brownshirts were evil. The brownshirts kicked the Jews in the streets and made the little kids put their hands on their heads as they stumbled off to the trains. The brownshirts were not interested in refuting arguments. They were interested in killing the people who dared argue at all.

At some point, I fear, the political discourse of 2004 is going to seem horribly irrelevant and misplaced in the face of some loud new wretched horror; it will seem as oddly disconnected from reality as the Condit / Killer-Shark news reports of August 2001. An indolent luxury.

Digital stormtroopers. Tell me again who’s stifling debate? Remind me again who’s questioning people’s patriotism?

Find me again the story where Bob Dole called the Dixie Chicks “musical Mukhabarats”? Look. We don't have to agree on the big hard issues, but we can certainly agree that we share common values that set us apart, and that it profits no one to identify the opposition as something outside the American experience. Liberals are not Communists. Republicans are not fascists. We have a nice window of opportunity here where we can come together by choice, instead of being thrown together by events. I say we get a head start on national unity, and turn on anyone who floats the Nazi analogy. Shun 'em. No links, no reviews, no radio interviews, no newspaper pieces, nothing. From now on, the Nazi parallel buys you bupkis. This means that the right doesn't get to parade around the mutterings of high-profile wackjobs as illustrative of the heart of everyone who votes D, and the left doesn't get to do the whole "he's wrong in his overheated critique, BUT" dodge. Enough. ENOUGH! For Christ's sake, enough!

Splitting Hairs, and Texans

There's an interesting discussion on Daly Thoughts about whether Texas should split into 5 states, as it is Constitutionally entitled to do. Four of the five states would almost certainly be Republican, with the fifth tending somewhat Democrat, so the Republicans would certainly have a short-term incentive in doing this. However, it won't happen.

As one commenter on Daly Thoughts noted, which state would get the Alamo? Besides, there's the fact that the things we love about Texas are usually things we love about Texas, not the particular part of the state that we are in. I love the smell of the prairie when the Spring winds are blowing, and the large amount of personal freedom that is granted and personal responsibility that is expected. I love the bluebonnets and the indian paintbrush. I love the attitude. I love the Alamo, and the Gulf coast, and the desert river with the dinosaur footprints fossilized in the riverbed. I love Austin. I love how everything is huge and new. I love the hills and trees in the trailing edge of the Ozarks. I love the way that the people are friendly and helpful. I love the almost universal patriotism and the limited whining. I love the longhorn cattle and the bison that are pastured, respectively, within two blocks and two miles of my house. I love the food. How much of this would remain in a state cut apart? Some of it, certainly, but not all.

I've thought about it - I suspect most Texans have - but I don't want to see it happen.

Just a Bit Outside

Wizbang has an excellent post, with a bunch of stories from one day's "news" of Democrats bashing President Bush for everything from slashing Federal science spending (actually, up dramatically under President Bush) to somehow making a Democrat-advocacy group hire convicted felons to register voters. The last story, though, is the kicker, that one that takes this into the realm of the surreal.

OK, I realize that Republicans are not innocent babes, but why is it that the real vote fraud (as opposed to hysterical allegations of keeping minorities from voting by "looking intimidating" at the polling places in their suits keeping track of the people trying to stuff the ballot boxes - not that I'm bitter) always seems to come from the Democrats, as well as much of the ... interesting ... interpretation of electoral law in the courts?

An Appraisal of the Clinton Presidency

I never would have thought it possible so soon after the end of his Presidency, but James Taranto and Leonard Leo have written a remarkably balanced summary of the Clinton Presidency. The summary presents both what made Bill Clinton so popular and what made him so exasperating.

Unconvinced

Michael Totten points to a serious case for voting for John Kerry if you are, for lack of a better term, a liberal hawk. The case is from Anne Cunningham of One-Sided Wonder, in three posts, here, here and here. It is a serious argument for Kerry, in a campaign where so far there have not been many such arguments, and it deserves to be addressed seriously.

First, I'd like to pull apart Ms. Cunningham's posts to group the related points together, and address each of these individually afterwards. Please note that as a result the context of the quotes might be slightly off. The "point" column is my distillation of the arguments. The "arguments" column is text from Ms. Cunningham's posts.

Point	Arguments
1. Bush is not worthy of the office of President because of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.	The more that comes out about Abu Ghraib and torture and unmuzzled dogs, the further out on a limb Bush seems to be. A few months ago he could have persuasively presented himself as the defender of civilization, the tough-minded liberator, but he abandoned that role, or compromised it so severely that this ground is now open territory. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.)
2. The world will not see a Bush electoral defeat as a win for terrorism.	I used to have a similar worry [to Roger Simon's: If John Kerry is elected in November, it will be interpreted by the world as such a repudiation of the WoT it will make the electoral defeat in Spain seem like a student council defeat in Iowa.], but Bush himself has changed the meaning of the election. I don't think the election will really represent a repudiation of the main thrust of Bush policy.
3. President Bush's policies are fine, but his execution is terrible.	[Kerry]'s not against the war on terror, or even the war in Iraq, so much as Bush's method of conducting these wars. Bush has validated Kerry's hesitation and concern. [A]lthough I supported the war, I don't think all of Bush's principles are sound. We are fighting a propaganda war as well as a military one, and in that sense "bad execution" encroaches on principle. It does so because bad execution here really amounts to bad faith.
4. A new administration is more likely to be able to win the goodwill of Iraqis.	Our legitimacy in Iraq is at a low ebb, much of the goodwill from the removal of Saddam having been squandered. A new administration can take a fresh approach with the various parties and factions in the country.
5. The Bush administration is too close to Saudi Arabia; a Kerry administration would be tougher on the Saudis.	And a Kerry administration would have a much less cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. Various Democratic policy makers already see the war on terror much more in terms of our problematic relations with allies like the Saudis and Pakistan, which are indeed likely to be trouble spots in the years to come.
6. A Kerry administration would have as much credibility in fighting the Terror Wars as the Bush administration.	We issued an ultimatum, carried through on it, and the effects of that will last beyond this administration. Our hard power is not in question. Kerry would have to backtrack a lot to undo that. What he can add to it, though, is some serious soft-power cultivation. We have addressed the question of state sponsorship of terror, to the extent of getting rid of a potential sponsor and delivering a warning elsewhere. Kerry will be seen as having less political will on this score than Bush did, but I think the show of American resolve will still have effects beyond the current administration.
7. "Soft power" is now more important than "hard power" in the remainder of the terror wars.	What [Kerry] can add to [Bush's use of military force], though, is some serious soft-power cultivation. We have addressed the question of state sponsorship of terror, to the extent of getting rid of a potential sponsor and delivering a warning elsewhere. Kerry will be seen as having less political will on this score than Bush did, but I think the show of American resolve will still have effects beyond the current administration.
8. Kerry would be a more credible war leader domestically than President Bush.	For the last few weeks I have been thinking that there may be some Nixon in China quality to the War on Terror. Only instead of having enough tough credibility to be soft, it's the other way around. Is it that only someone who does not come off as a warmonger can rally the whole nation?
9. President Bush and at least some of his cabinet are simply evil. [I don't regard this as a particularly serious point, but it needs to be addressed.]	I was thinking of this after reading Clarke's book, because I agreed with his portrait of John Ashcroft as a terrible Attorney General - in a symbolic sense, if nothing else. Whatever he is or is not doing under the Patriot Act, he is the wrong type to be in the role, because he has no natural affinity for civil rights. He doesn't seem to have too many internal checks on his behavior. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.) If I seem to be harping on the dog thing, it's because that combined with the sexual humiliation is so reminiscent of accounts I have read of Klaus Barbie's interrogation style that I cannot get past it. I realize that both methods were probably designed to touch on specific taboos of Islam, dogs being unclean to Muslims, &c. But still, it's so very very Klaus Barbie.
10. Kerry's claims of waging the Terror Wars only with law enforcement and intelligence will not survive his coming into office.	I also think that Kerry will inevitably become more willing to use force once in office. It's when parties are out of power that they appear in their most dovish light.
11. John Kerry is more realistic and more moderate than President Bush.	And good execution is not nothing. A Kerry administration would no doubt be less ideologically driven than the Bush team (given that several of his advisors are moderate Republicans), and so might have a more realistic picture of the challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond.

The overarching point of this case is that John Kerry, if elected President, would be better - or at least no worse - than President Bush at prosecuting the Terror Wars, and that we would not lose ground in the war in a Kerry administration. I'm not convinced. To show why, I'll address each point in order, then talk about one critical issue that remains unaddressed by Ms. Cunningham: character.

Point 1: President Bush is not worthy of the office of President because of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Ms. Cunningham's use of active language to relate President Bush to the Abu Ghraib scandal implies that President Bush was responsible for the offenses:

The more that comes out about Abu Ghraib and torture and unmuzzled dogs, the further out on a limb Bush seems to be. A few months ago he could have persuasively presented himself as the defender of civilization, the tough-minded liberator, but he abandoned that role, or compromised it so severely that this ground is now open territory.

As President and Commander in Chief, President Bush is responsible for preventing such acts; fair point. How is a President to prevent such acts? No sane person would claim that any President can personally oversee every member of the armed forces or the civilian government. As a result, the President has to be judged based on the means available to him: policy and enforcement. By setting policy, a President lays out the expected behavior of those people working for the executive branch. By enforcing that policy, as well as the various laws, the President signals how much tolerance he has for misbehavior.

So it would be fair to hold President Bush personally accountable for the Abu Ghraib offenses if either his policies allowed this behavior, or his enforcement was lax or non-existent. Have either of these occurred? Um, no.

President Bush was told by legal counsel that he could authorize torture for prisoners, because the Geneva Conventions and certain US laws don't apply in this case. Ignoring the soundness of the legal advice (some of it appears highly suspect, to say the least), the President accepted the legality of the advice but explicitly chose to not use torture. The President has taken a very firm policy stance that torture is unacceptable.

"Look, let me make very clear the position of my government and our country," Bush said Tuesday in the Oval Office.

"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Bush's comments to reporters came as the White House released a raft of documents that administration officials say show there was no policy allowing the abuse of prisoners.

Bush accepted advice from the Justice Department that the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan, but he ordered the military to follow the conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," according to one of the memos released by the White House.

"Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," Bush wrote in the memo dated February 7, 2002. "Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles."

The policy prohibited the acts carried out at Abu Ghraib by US soldiers, so the only way that the President could be held accountable was if he failed to enforce the policy. Was there a cover-up? No, the first reports of the abuses came from CentCom in January, 2 days after the first investigatory interviews were conducted.

If there was no cover-up, was there a lack of enforcement? Again, no. The day after reporters were notified, and just three days after the beginning of the investigation, the prison commander was formally admonished (ending her chances of career advancement forever) and the commander of the MP battalion was relieved of his command. Investigations continued, and prosecutions began.

Perhaps the law was being evaded by picking low-level scapegoats and absolving the commanders? Again, no. Recently, a 4-star general was given charge of the investigation (taking over from a 2-star), which can only mean (under the military's rule against junior officers questioning a senior officer) that the entire CentCom command hierarchy is under investigation. It is likely that charges will be brought against at least one general officer, or this upgrade of rank would not have been necessary.

I see no way that President Bush, his administration or the military can be fairly accused of covering up the events, not enforcing the law, or picking scapegoats to avoid enforcing the law on anyone important.

I'm actually not going to take up the moral equivalence argument ("stealing pages from the Nazi playbook" and "it's so very very Klaus Barbie") until point 9, but I did want to point out here that it is clear that the President explicitly forbade any such methods from use, so absent any indication that the President granted an exception in this case or failed to enforce the law or policy, knowing there had been an offense, such an argument is reprehensible at best.

Point 2: The world will not see a Bush electoral defeat as a win for terrorism.

Yes, yes it will. The Spanish elections were seen as a clear win for the terrorists, as the new government pulled out of Iraq as quickly as it could (and awarded medals for bravery to the high-level commanders who co-ordinated the pullout!!), and leaving the field of battle to the enemy is a defeat by any standard.

Would a President Kerry leave Iraq to the enemy? It's unclear what he would do, because Kerry is in favor of every option, and against every option, depending on the day; but it is unlikely that Kerry would be able to pull out of Iraq in less than two or three years without being impeached, and it's unlikely that he would want to do so even if that were not the case.

But there are other ways in which a Kerry victory would be seen by the world (and many Americans) as a defeat in the war. For example, the terrorists and the world will conclude that the US does not have the will to win. Not only is that how we got into this mess in the first place, but a Kerry victory almost certainly would mean that the electorate lacks the will to win. Unless it can be shown that Kerry would be stronger on the war than President Bush, there is no other way to see it. And given his past actions, pronouncements and Senate votes, no reasonable person could conclude that Kerry is more devoted to agressive national defense than President Bush.

If "Bush himself has changed the meaning of the election" in regards to Abu Ghraib, it can only mean that any imperfection on our part - even if detected and punished - cancels out every other issue, including whether or not we win the war, instead of taking the Johnson approach of looking grave while ignoring the war, so as to focus on the "Great Society" instead. Well, we all know how that worked out. In any event, this statement by Ms. Cunningham can only be evaluated as saying that the US only deserves victory if we are perfect, which is clearly an impossible standard.

Moreover, while Ms. Cunningham may not "think the election will really represent a repudiation of the main thrust of Bush policy", the rest of the world will certainly see it as such. Kerry has already made so many statements (as well as past actions and votes) against taking resolute action abroad, even going so far as to dismiss democracy in Iraq as an unimportant goal, that it is clear he would not follow the main thrust of Bush policy: attacking our enemies before they attack us, holding terrorist havens and sponsors as accountable as the terrorists, preventing unstable states from obtaining nuclear weapons. From the standpoint of someone not impelled by domestic US politics, the election of John Kerry will look like a repudiation of these policies.

My personal guess is that a Kerry foreign policy will look like a Clinton foreign policy; my fear is that it will look like a Carter foreign policy. I suppose for the terrorists, you'd have to say "hope" instead of "fear" in that last clause.

Point 3: President Bush's policies are fine, but his execution is terrible.

[Kerry]'s not against the war on terror, or even the war in Iraq, so much as Bush's method of conducting these wars. Bush has validated Kerry's hesitation and concern.

Again, the standard seems to be perfection, and again it is simply not possible. So the comment about "validat[ing] Kerry's hesitation and concern" is bogus. How long should we have waited? What methods short of war were available to us which we did not first try?

If you don't dispute the policy, then you must provide a vehicle for obtaining it. As George Will said, "Who wills an end must will a means to that end." If you desire an outcome (the removal of Saddam) you must provide a vehicle. Kerry voted for the war and argued against it. He criticized the execution before it began. He makes unrealistic claims - totally at odds with the statements of the French, German and Russian governments - about what he can obtain via diplomacy. What is the vehicle? How else do we obtain the end of removing Saddam without the means of war?

And frankly I'm not even sure if Kerry is for or against prosecuting the war as a war. He's said before that it should be an intelligence and law enforcement operation. It's pretty clear to me that he would not be willing to use force to take on Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia - if he wouldn't use force against Saddam without UN acquiescence, why would he use it against less immediately threatening countries with far less of a record of UN censure behind them? Perhaps Kerry would be willing to make war once there was another September 11 - perhaps this time with nuclear weapons supplied by Iran or N. Korea - but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

While I agree that the Bush administration has been less than perfect in its understanding of some of the dynamics that we need to use to win, I'm not convinced Kerry would do better. If this is a propaganda war (as differentiated from any other war how, exactly?), and if Bush has been less zealous about prosecuting the war of ideas than one would like, how does one find that Kerry would do better? His refusal to support the Varela Project certainly is not encouraging. Nor are his past actions, statements and votes.

I believe that Kerry would be unable to articulate an ideology of American greatness or even the superiority of representative government and rule of law, because I believe that he does not believe in the superiority of representative government and the rule of law. Certainly, his past actions, statements and votes have not indicated any such view on his part.

Point 4: A new administration is more likely to be able to win the goodwill of Iraqis.

I've not seen much evidence that this administration does not have the goodwill of Iraqis. I've seen interviews with high-ranking Ba'athist officers, former(?) Mukhabarat and Fedayeen officers and a few people who have lost their high status in society, in which those people expressed their anger, disappointment and hatred of George Bush and America and the Jews and democracy and individual liberty and such. I've seen the opposite from the Iraqi people themselves; that just doesn't get on the evening "news".

As far as a new approach goes, it has been very clear for some time that the approach is to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, then stay to provide that government with teeth to beat down the jihadis and ensure that the transition to democratic rule takes hold. This would be followed by a political disengagement, probably like with Germany and Japan, where the new government asked us to station forces there. What new approach would you suggest?

Point 5: The Bush administration is too close to Saudi Arabia; a Kerry administration would be tougher on the Saudis.

And a Kerry administration would have a much less cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. Various Democratic policy makers already see the war on terror much more in terms of our problematic relations with allies like the Saudis and Pakistan, which are indeed likely to be trouble spots in the years to come.

I don't buy it. The Clinton administration was hardly tough on the Saudis or Pakistanis, even while Pakistan was developing the nuclear program that is causing us so much grief now. How would Kerry be different? I suspect that most of his statements against the Saudis are just posturing, because it's a way of making the accomplishments in Afghanistan and Iraq look less amazing if he keeps pointing out what hasn't been done yet.

And besides, what would Kerry do? He's not willing to go to war against Saudi Arabia. He's not willing to compel them to carry out law enforcement on our behalf. He's not willing to shut down their oil industry, and thus their ability to fund Wahabbi Islam missionary activities. He's not willing to ban Saudi "charities" or keep Saudi citizens out of the country. What would he do?

Point 6: A Kerry administration would have as much credibility in fighting the Terror Wars as the Bush administration.

No, it wouldn't. Kerry is willing to kowtow to France and the UN for crumbs of approval, unwilling to aggressively wage war, unwilling to defend American interests abroad except in very narrow circumstances and unwilling to confront our enemies or truculent neutrals like Germany and Russia. This is hardly invisible abroad. Certainly the French, the Germans, Hizb'allah, Iran, North Korea and others have made statements that they would prefer Kerry for just that reason.

And while perceptions of American weakness (Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, refusal to put in ground troops in Kosovo, vaccilation on Bosnia, refusal to retaliate meaningfully against attacks on the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the USS Cole) last and are taken as lessons, perceptions of American strength (Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, OIF) are seen as momentary fits of a failing giant, lashing out in desperation. I don't believe that's what we're doing, but our enemy does believe that, and says so regularly.

The only way for Kerry to gain that credibility is to aggressively defend American security and interests, and he has shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to do so.

Point 7: "Soft power" is now more important than "hard power" in the remainder of the terror wars.

When polls are taken about whether people are satisfied or unsatisfied with the Bush administration's direction in the Terror Wars in general or Iraq in particular, an interesting point emerges. If the question is just "satisfied/unsatisfied", Bush doesn't come off well. But when the question is whether we should be tougher, less tough, or about the same, the preponderance of opinion is that we should be tougher (it even outpolls "about the same"). How could "soft power" answer that desire?

More importantly, how could "soft power" deter the Iranians from using nuclear weapons against Israel or the US, or giving them to terrorists to use, or even developing them in the first place? How could "soft power" stop the beheadings and mutilation, the rabid pathology of jihadi beliefs that it is their religious duty to kill non-Muslims (and even Muslims who aren't the right kind of Muslim) or large-scale terrorist acts like the African Embassy bombings or 9/11?

Point 8: Kerry would be a more credible war leader domestically than President Bush.

"Is it that only someone who does not come off as a warmonger can rally the whole nation?" Um, no. Just how, pray tell, is Kerry supposed to rally the nation, and to what end? "I want all Americans tonight, to unite with me in averting our eyes to the statements and actions of the peaceful Muslim freedom fighters who butchered 10 civilian hostages in Iraq." Doesn't ring true to me, and I wouldn't put it past Kerry.

Let's face it: Kerry is not seen as credible on the war by hardly anyone outside of the fringe who want to end it outright by surrendering, or the few centrists who are more concerned with beating Bush than winning the war. As James Lileks said the other day, "I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated." By Ms. Cunningham's comparison of Bush to Hitler and his administration to the NAZI party, I'm guessing she falls into that category.

Point 9: President Bush and at least some of his cabinet are simply evil.

I was thinking of this after reading Clarke's book, because I agreed with his portrait of John Ashcroft as a terrible Attorney General - in a symbolic sense, if nothing else. Whatever he is or is not doing under the Patriot Act, he is the wrong type to be in the role, because he has no natural affinity for civil rights. He doesn't seem to have too many internal checks on his behavior. Bush/Hitler is, similarly, not going to be given the benefit of the doubt. (Especially when his team are, you know, stealing pages from the Nazi playbook and interrogating people using dogs.)

If I seem to be harping on the dog thing, it's because that combined with the sexual humiliation is so reminiscent of accounts I have read of Klaus Barbie's interrogation style that I cannot get past it. I realize that both methods were probably designed to touch on specific taboos of Islam, dogs being unclean to Muslims, &c. But still, it's so very very Klaus Barbie.

This is the only deeply unserious point that Ms. Cunningham makes, and it is so offensive that I almost didn't respond to her other points at all. If you need help telling the Bush administration apart from the NAZIs, or President Bush from Adolf Hitler, then I don't have enough time to do more than say "Read some bloody history, would you?" I can't really say anything more about this without launching into a tirade. This kind of moral equivalence doesn't show the immorality of the target (President Bush) but of the accuser (Ms. Cunningham).

Point 10: Kerry's claims of waging the Terror Wars only with law enforcement and intelligence will not survive his coming into office.

I also think that Kerry will inevitably become more willing to use force once in office. It's when parties are out of power that they appear in their most dovish light.

That's a big hope to cherish there. It goes against Kerry's entire past history of actions and votes, and against his statements both in the past and in the current campaign. I'd really like to see some evidence that this would happen.

Oh, sure, Kerry would respond to a direct attack on US soil. No doubt he would react at least by bombing someone somewhere and making tough statements and looking grave and concerned on TV and in many funereal photo ops. But Kerry has shown no interest in preventing such attacks by preempting them. He would rather defend locally than globally, and that is going to get people killed if he's elected.

Again, if you will an end (preventing attacks on the US), you have to will a means to that end. Hope is not a plan. Grave concern is not a method. How are we to prevent terrorism against us except by killing the terrorists and destroying their havens and sources of supply? Unless Kerry is willing to do that - and he shows every indication that he is not so willing - there is little hope of preventing attacks. And if you have already ruled out doing these things to prevent attacks, how do they help in response to attacks?

In an era where our enemies want to die, want to kill us in large numbers, and are on the path to acquire nuclear weapons, turning away from the problem invites genocide on one side or the other.

Point 11: John Kerry is more realistic and more moderate than President Bush.

A Kerry administration would no doubt be less ideologically driven than the Bush team (given that several of his advisors are moderate Republicans), and so might have a more realistic picture of the challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond.

Interesting point. Utterly false, but interesting. First, Kerry himself is rabidly Leftist - more so even than Ted Kennedy. Second, his advisors also include a number of far-Left types, and the pool from which he could draw for expertise on foreign policy contains mostly ex-Clinton and ex-Carter staffers - not really a hopeful sign for either moderation or competence.

Moreover, it ignores the problem that it's pretty difficult to get more moderate than George Bush. Bush hasn't taken extreme right-wing positions on any issue I can think of. (John Ashcroft has, and I'm not particularly a fan of him as Attorney General, but Bush himself has not.) There are areas where I'm unhappy with his positions, such as the FMA, but I don't find them extreme.

Of course, it depends upon your point of view, as well. If Dan Rather is a moderate in your world, then George Bush could be considered an extremist. But looking at a 3-d bell-curve of how citizens' view fall, with libertarian/collectivist on one axis, and capitalist/communist on the other, Bush is almost dead-center on libertarian/collectivist (perhaps slightly collectivist overall) and significantly towards capitalist. On the other hand, Kerry is significantly collectivist and somewhat communist (in the economic sense - not the political ideology, but the economic theory).

And as for John Kerry's realism, well, I will just let that one go. I think he's living in a fantasy world where everyone is good and nice, as long as we jingoistic Americans - particularly if we are conservative, white and/or male - are appropriately humble and apologetic.

In the end, what matters most about the quality of a President is his character. Will the President act according to solid principles, or will he waver and weasel and stick his finger in the wind? If we cannot predict what he will do, he may or may not act as we hope. And given Kerry's tendency to be on every side of every issue, I simply cannot trust the man. This November, I will vote as if my life depends on it. And since I cannot trust Kerry to take actions either to safeguard my life or, if necessary, to make meaningful my death, I'll be voting for George Bush. And it will be the first vote for a Republican for President that I will have cast since 1988.

UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted comments.

Stupid Protesters

Expat Yank has a post on the "war is not the answer" bumper sticker. I walk past protestors many days on my way to work. My favorite sign so far is "You can't teach democracy through the barrel of a gun". As the Germans and Japanese their opinion on that one.

Another good one is "Only peace matters". Really? More than freedom? More than life? What peace did Paul Johnson have as he was beheaded? Is the peace of the grave acceptable?

Finally (at least for now): "One year later, war is still wrong". Three years later, war is still horrible. But it was forced upon us, and many of us choose not to die. Even just looking at the Iraq war, is war more or less wrong than averting your eyes while women are beheaded in front of their children because their husband fled the country, or hundreds of thousands are tortured, mutilated and killed to satisfy the bloodlust of a megalomaniac tyrant? I suppose for some, anything is preferable to admitting you might have been wrong. After all, it's not the protestors' lives which are in danger...today.

The Don't Torture Memos

It is likely that this won't get much media time: the Bush administration has released a raft of memos regarding how much pressure is permissible when interrogating prisoners taken in the Terror Wars. As I wrote (twice):

Say that Secretary Rumsfeld were to ask Undersecretary Smith to write a memo justifying the use of torture just because we feel like it, Undersecretary Jones to write a memo explaining why even looking unhappy in the presence of a prisoner is unConsitutional regardless of circumstance, and other undersecretaries were asked to write intermediate position papers. Now, we don't know what policy was adopted, nor what other memos may have been written, so how can we conclude from the existence of this memo that in fact it represents ANYTHING about government policy?

Sure enough, the government has concluded that it is more damaging to our cause to have some believe that we use torture, than it is to release the details of our policy on interrogations (which allows the enemy to train to resist those techniques). So, good job, all of you who called the President or Secretary Rumsfeld monsters: you've now made it less likely that the US will be able to obtain useful information from captured enemies. I don't think that was the intent of most of you (some I'm not so sure), but it was the effect.

I hope that at some point we can all move past the assumption that our domestic political opponents must be murderers and drug runners (of which Clinton was accused) or monsters who demand we torture prisoners and who rob the country blind (of which Bush is accused). I'm really, really sick of a political atmosphere that believes such horrible slanders, and a media which propagates them as plausible.

The Torture Memo - Take 2

Glenn Reynolds has a post about the "torture memo" and it's meaning (which I discussed here as well). I sent an email to him, but since his volume is too high for there to be much likelihood of it getting out otherwise, here is the email:

You note:

I find it hard to respond to these things in terms of cost-benefit. My law school mentor Charles Black once said that of course you can come up with scenarios -- the classic ticking-nuclear-bomb example -- where torture might be justified. And you can be sure that, in those cases, if people think it'll work they'll use it no matter what the rules are. But there's a real value to pretending that there's an absolute rule against it even if we know people will break it in extraordinary circumstances, because it ensures that people won't mistake an ordinary remedy for an extraordinary one.

It seems to me that it is clear that there are moral cases where the doctrine of least harm compels the use of torture. The ticking nuclear bomb scenario is one, but let's take a more personal one:

If my wife were kidnapped, and I had in my possession someone whom I absolutely knew to have the information of where she was held, I would not stop to consider whether or not to torture the person. I would ask the question once, then cut off a finger, then ask again, and so forth. I would be perfectly willing to face the legal and moral consequences of that action in order to save my wife. Note that I don't at assume that I know something bad will happen or is happening - she might just be released unharmed. But since I don't know, and since her well-being is worth more than my freedom or even my life, I would not hesitate.

The same applies, I think, in the case of a ticking nuclear bomb. I would hope that the government agents charged with such a task would torture the person who knows, if necessary to prevent the detonation, then present themselves for trial. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law and accept the consequences.

You also say:

I also think that the rather transparent effort to use this against Bush -- often by people who think nothing of cozying up to the likes of Castro, for whom torture and murder are essential tools of governance -- has caused the Abu Ghraib issue to be taken less seriously than perhaps it ought to be.

There is a possibility I haven't seen discussed much: what if there were more than one memo?

Say that Secretary Rumsfeld were to ask Undersecretary Smith to write a memo justifying the use of torture just because we feel like it, Undersecretary Jones to write a memo explaining why even looking unhappy in the presence of a prisoner is unConsitutional regardless of circumstance, and other undersecretaries were asked to write intermediate position papers. Now, we don't know what policy was adopted, nor what other memos may have been written, so how can we conclude from the existence of this memo that in fact it represents ANYTHING about government policy?

The Torture Memo

If you are living under a rock, you might be unaware that a memorandum from the Defense Department was recently leaked, and in this memo techniques for avoiding the law so as to "justify"¹ torture are put forth. Phil Carter has some excellent commentary. However, I have yet to see anyone make one point: whether this was actually implemented as policy, or whether it was merely advice. This renders his analysis suspect.

For example, let's say that I am SecDef Rumsfeld, and I put forth to my advisors the following propositions to defend:

1. Advisor Smith: The government has the authority to torture terrorists whenever it wants for whatever reason it wants (and assumes the authority to define who is and is not a terrorist).
   
2. Advisor Jones: The government has the authority to torture terrorists in extremis; for example, to detect a suicide squad heading for the President's motorcade.
   
3. Advisor Doe: The government never has the authority to torture anyone under any circumstance.

Now assume that my advisors come back with memos, and I accept the advice of Advisor Doe, with some caveats added from Advisor Jones' memo and some additional conditions added by myself. Assume then that Agent Smith's memo is leaked.

If I am the press secretary, I might make remarks such as:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques. "While we will seek to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists who seek to inflict mass harm on the American people, the president expects that we do so in a way that is consistent with our laws," McClellan said.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview with The Washington Post: "Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president, . . . the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.' "

And they would be "directly contradicted by the plain language of the memoranda". So it seems to me that the key question in analyzing this is what other memoranda were presented on the topic, and what policy was adopted? Without that, no analysis could be complete. (Though judgements, including most assuredly the judgement that torture is never justified, do not require any such additional evidence.)

¹This is in scare quotes because there is almost never any reason for torture to be committed, and in those few cases there is still no justification in the sense of escaping responsibility. Let me clarify what I mean: should we torture a person - even a citizen - if that's what is necessary in order to save a city from, say, a nuclear bomb with a ticking timer? Yes, absolutely. But the people who make that call, and the people who obey the order and perform the torture, cannot be excused the law. They may be justified - a jury might even let them off - but they should certainly be impeached and/or tried (depending on whether or not they are officers of government) for the act. The pitfall of great power in a representative society is large accountability for your actions.

Before the Body is Even in the Ground

How far have we fallen, to spit on the unburied body of a great American, simply because of political disagreements 10-30 years old? Right Wing News shows us. The least that these people can do is have the simple dignity to say nothing. But, no, for some, the concept of "enemy" is unthinkable, unless the enemy is a fellow citizen who disagrees on matters of policy and ideology. I will certainly never read Christopher Hitchens again.

It Takes a Village to Drug Your Child

I am frequently accused of being an extremist - and many more nasty-sounding things - for thinking that the US is descending into tyranny, and the rate of descent is increasing. Evidence is on my side. (Hat tip: Wizbang) The scary part of this story is how common it is. In part, this is due to the fact that teachers are required by law, in most states, to report suspected child abuse and the like, and are subject to criminal penalties for not reporting abuse, but not for reporting as abuse a non-abusive situation. The incentive reminds me of the witch trials in the Burning Times, where the judge and the accuser split the estate of the condemned: report innocence as guild and not lose or do not report guilt and lose. (This is why there were trials where, for example, the accused was bound hand and foot and thrown in the water. If the accused floated, she (or he) was a witch. If the accused drowned, the corpse was proclaimed innocent, and the judge and accuser still got to split the estate.)

If there is one area where government control of our lives has gotten so utterly out of hand as to become unbearable, this is it. When the government takes our money out of hand, it is worth fighting a political battle to prevent. When the government takes our children out of hand, it's worth killing to prevent.

I hope that we back out of this madness before events come to that extreme.

Unhinged

Glenn Reynolds provides an example of Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane."

Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

And...

[Y]ou can gauge the breadth of [Foreman's] imaginative compassion from his willingness to extend it even toward George W. Bush, idiot scion of a genetically criminal family that should have been sterilized three generations ago.

Mind you: these quotes are from a theater review!

About Time

I don't have any personal beef with George Tenet, but after the failures of September 11 (Tenet is not responsible for that, but he is accountable in part), WMD in Iraq and some other bits of bad performance at the CIA, his resignation is welcome. Most importantly, it allows for some dissipation of the animosity between CIA and FBI and CIA and the Congress, which is all to the good in terms of actually accomplishing our goals.

On the down side, expect Leftist calls for resignations of other cabinet and independent-agency heads to increase dramatically as they smell blood (even if it's just their own).

Morality and Law

Donald Sensing finds a particular attitude about abortion to be "[c]hilling". The attitude in question is pointed up in this article. While there is more to the article than just the excerpt Rev. Sensing uses, I will use the same one, as it points up the thesis of the article:

"I think abortion is killing a life. [But] the person who is pregnant should decide whether to do it or not." ...

Ms. Flores’s attitude is deeply troubling, especially when you realize how widespread it is. Over and over again, people at the march made similar comments—the kind of comments that make your hair stand on end. The political debate is changing among activists on the ground. They’re now willing to admit that abortion is killing. But they’re arguing that their right to do what they want, without restraint, justifies that killing.

What we are seeing, of course, is the logical consequences of the desire for personal autonomy in an era of moral relativism. People can say with a perfectly straight face and without a twinge of conscience, "Yeah, it is wrong. It is murder. But nobody is going to tell me I can’t do it."

Actually, the protester did not claim that abortion is "murder"; that claim is by Mr. Colson. Instead, she claimed abortion is "killing a life". There are more ways of killing than just murder, as a legal matter. Murder is specifically an intentional, unlawful killing (ok, it's more technical than that, but that's the gist of the definition).

Since I happen to share the belief that abortion is morally wrong, but should not be illegal (generally), I'm willing to defend it. But first, a note about law. The law is not a moral instrument; it's purpose is not to compel ethically- or morally-upright behavior. Instead, it is the purpose of law to prevent anarchy and its inevitable conversion to tyranny, by providing a mechanism of settling disputes and enforcing contracts which does not require the private use of force. Since the law imposes behavioral constraints by force (the force of arms wielded by the government), it is wise to limit criminal law's reach to only those areas where there is a tangible victim, a tangible harm, and a tangible perpetrator; and civil law's reach to only those areas where there is a tangible plaintiff, a tangible defendant, and a material or contractual cause of action.

Abortion, in certain circumstances, fails the first test. That is, if the abortion occurs before the foetus is able to live outside the mother's body¹, who is the victim? The child, who is killed, or the mother, who is compelled by force to carry a child she doesn't want, and to risk her own life in delivering the child? Since it's not clear who the victim is, it would be unwise to make abortion an issue of criminal law. Once the child can survive outside the mother, the situation changes, because the risks to the mother from c-section delivery (the riskier method) of the child and from the putative abortion are similar enough that there is now a clear imbalance of harms and thus a clear victim, the unborn child. If the government is allowed to criminalize any behavior it finds morally reprehensible, it could criminalize something as personal as private prayer at school. Hmmm...maybe this concern is moot.

Abortion also fails the second test, that of civil law, if the government attempts to use civil law to abolish abortion. Who would sue? Who would be the plaintiff? The government should not sue on behalf of putative victims, because the government should be neutral in civil matters. If the child's father were to sue, or if someone else could show cause to sue, that would be fine by me, but I don't want the government intruding here, lest it then decide to sue me because I called someone an epithet. (Of course, it should be noted that our tendency to invite the government into all aspects of our life has borne such fruit that we can now be taken to court by the government for complimenting someone when they didn't want the compliment, so this may be moot.)

Anyway, ignoring the fact that we've already given too much latitude to the government to abuse us via the mechanism of criminal and civil law, there is a clear legal difference between abortion (under some circumstances) and murder. There is no moral difference.

As a result, I could not stand by and let my wife have an abortion (should she be so inclined), but I do not feel that I have a sufficiently compelling interest (nor that any body of people do) to compel a woman by threat of imprisonment and impoverishment to not abort her baby. Abortion is immoral, but should not be illegal.

¹The rule I would tend to use for "the foetus is able to live outside the mother's body" is the gestational age where 50% of babies would live, assisted by current medical knowledge and capability, which has been steadily getting earlier as time goes by, but in any case is a quantity resistant to falsification or political manipulation. There are other reasonable measures, though.

Getting to the Bottom of 9/11?

The next time you Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or any of a number of other partisan Democrats or their hacks bashing the President's testimony, just remind yourself that two of the 9/11 commission's five Democrats walked out in the middle of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney's testimony. Frankly, between acts like this, and the fact that the author of one of the policies which most hindered the detection of 9/11 plot is on the panel instead of a witness, it has become apparent that the resulting report will be compromised no matter what it says.

He's a President, Not a Prime Minister

In the US, the President is not selected by Congress, is not subject to Congressional whims, does not answer to Congress and does not serve at the pleasure of Congress (though he can be compelled to leave office by Congress's extreme displeasure - so extreme that it's only happened once, to Richard Nixon). Apparently, Reuters doesn't understand this:

He dismissed criticism from Democrats that he wanted to appear together with Cheney so they would not contradict each other and did not mention he had only met with the commission under pressure from victims' families.

"Look, if we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. As I say, I came away good about the session because I wanted them to know how I set strategy, how we run the White House, how we deal with threats," Bush said.

[snip]

Bush agreed under pressure to answer questions from all panel members for as long as necessary, but only on condition he have Cheney at his side and they meet in private, with no recording of the session. They were not under oath.

[snip]

The meeting, with potential election-year ramifications, took place in the very heart of presidential power, the Oval Office, rather than in a room that would have provided a traditional table-and-chair setting.

[snip]

On Capitol Hill, U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, criticized Bush and Cheney for demanding that they appear together.

"I think the only advantage to them doing it together is that their comments be consistent. But I really think that the whole process would have been better served if the president had gone in alone and the vice president had gone in alone."

While I'm sure Ms. Pelosi feels that way, the point of the exercise is not to give the Democrats ammunition for the election season, but to learn lessons from the events and reactions leading up to 9/11, hopefully to aid in preventing such catastrophes in the future.

Reuters, on the other hand, simply seems to think that the President is actually a Prime Minister with a different title. Well, it's not like they get much else right, so why should that surprise me?

This May be a New Low

One odd effect of bureaucracy is that a rule once made is almost always taken too far. Somehow, I doubt the Green Party meant for this to happen.

Balance the Budget Yourself

Via Betsy's Page, I came across the National Budget Simulation.

After taking out Social Security and Medicare (and associated tax breaks), and changing nothing else, I got a surplus (presumably over 10 years) of slightly over $427 billion. Holding everything else even, and eliminating military spending completely (excepting retirements already granted), I got a surplus of on $92 billion.

Odd, isn't it, how you never hear about how much money Social Security and Medicare actually cost the country.

Justice

Mark was called to voir dire, and dismissed for cause. Like Mark, I don't understand why people try so hard to get out of jury duty; I see it as a fundamental duty of all citizens to serve. Mark's post brings up two thoughts for me, one about the case Mark was involved in (and similar cases) and one about our justice system in general.

My one time to go through voir dire was also on a drunk driving case. The defendant had two prior drunk driving convictions, and as a result, a conviction in this case would have put him away for a much longer period than drunk driving normally would bring. The prosecutor tried to dismiss me for cause (putting a higher burden on the prosecution than "beyond a reasonable doubt") because I said I didn't think that a police officer's word, absent any other evidence, constituted compelling evidence. I think it's fair to say that I could have given the defendant an objective hearing (I was dismissed because my number was too high for it to be mathematically possible that I would be chosen).

On the other hand, had I been convinced that the defendant was, in fact, driving drunk at the time that he was arrested, I would have been perfectly willing to throw the book at him; I don't believe in lenient treatment of irresponsible behavior in adults.

This who chain of thought, though, leads me to contemplate the weakness of our criminal justice system: the division of responsibilities is wrong. The expertise of a judge is in the law, and in determining the most likely truth out of a set of conflicting theories (offered by counsel mostly) and evidence. A judge is trained (by his time on the bench, eventually, even if not previously trained as a lawyer) to determine the facts, and to apply the law to those facts to determine culpability for a given offense in toto or by degrees.

Juries, on the other hand, are not very good at determining fact from fiction, if the fiction is cleverly presented and the facts carefully concealed. Lawyers are trained to present arguments cleverly and to draw attention away from inconvenient facts. Juries are subject to a kind of emotionalism that judges are by and large able to separate themselves from. What juries are, though, is a representative slice of the community (if correctly chosen). As such, juries are uniquely qualified (and I mean that literally) to pass judgement on a member of the community. Indeed, that is why we have juries: our Constitution is laid out to prevent responsibility for punishment from being removed from the community.

If I could wave my magic wand and fix one thing about our judicial system, I would put in place a criminal justice system where judges were responsible for determining the facts of a criminal case, and the applicable law, and were required to inform juries of their right to impose any punishment, including no punishment, for any reason whatsoever, so long as it didn't exceed the limits of the law on that case. Then, juries should be able to impose any sentence they desire, so long as it does not exceed the limits of the law on that case. The judge should be unable to change the sentence decided by the jury.

Take the case of the lady in Texas who was recently acquitted (by reason of insanity) of killing her children. Well, the fact is, she murdered two of her children and attempted to murder the others. She should have been found guilty on that basis. However, the jury was perfectly within its rights to decide that she had been and would be punished enough by the loss of her children and the confinement to an asylum. In order to ensure that the jury is representative of the community, we would need to eliminate the requirement for juries to be objective, because the whole point is to get a jury representative of the community, and the community is not always objective.

I guess I get these views just by thinking about how I would like to be treated if accused of a crime. I would want the judge to dispassionately determine the facts, and whether or not (and to what degree) the law was violated. I would want the jury, though, to be in sole charge of determining whether and how I get punished (so long as they are prevented from the imposition of excessive penalties).

UPDATE (4/7): Thomas Sowell is looking at similar problems. While I don't agree with him entirely, I do think his commentary is interesting and largely correct:

The requirement for unanimous jury verdicts is long overdue for reconsideration. One pig-headed juror can cause not only a costly mistrial but also verdicts that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime.
People who commit murder should be convicted of murder, not manslaughter because one juror is too squeamish to risk the death penalty. There are too many people around who think they have "a right to my own opinion," as they put it, which translates as: "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts."
The time is also long overdue to reconsider the current practice of having jurors selected with vetoes by the lawyers in the case. When prospective jurors are given 30-page questionnaires made up by lawyers, asking intrusive questions about their personal lives and beliefs, the situation has gotten completely out of hand.
Courts do not exist for the sake of lawyers but for the sake of the public. Allowing lawyers to fish around in hopes of finding one mushhead who can save their client makes no sense.
Anonymous jurors, selected by lottery, and not restricted to unanimous verdicts, should be good enough for anyone in an inherently imperfect world. In such a system, cranks and ideologues would not have nearly the leverage they do now.
There could also be professional jurors, trained in the law, for cases involving complex legal issues. That would cost more — or rather, the cost would be visible in money, rather than hidden in the corruption of the legal system, the way it is now.

Question for Kerry

Best of the Web today notes John Kerry promising to create 10 million jobs, while there are only 8.4 million unemployed in the US. The leads to a question that I would like to see the Senator answer: "Senator, do you propose to 'outsource' 1.6 million current jobs in the process¹, allow 1.6 million new immigrant workers, or do you propose making up the difference by increasing taxes and regulations?"

¹Hey, if a President can create jobs, he can outsource them as well.

Nuance

Despite the title, this post is not about John Kerry. It is instead about America, and in particular America's way of addressing long-term problems. Steven Den Beste has a typically-provocative essay on how Europeans (in particular) misunderstand America. For the most part, I agree with him. I do have one issue to raise with his essay, though, and this quote is at its core:

So they discount the fact that America remained steadfast during the entire Cold War despite both parties electing Presidents during that interval. There were differences in style and approach towards how the Cold War should be handled, but never any doubt that it would be handled, no matter which party held the White House.

I think that Steven underestimates the differences between how the two major parties would handle the Terror Wars, and this may be a projection of underestimating the differences during the Cold War. These are important matters, not small nuanced differences.

To illustrate, consider the difference between Johnson (don't put out a winning effort in Viet Nam, because it would endanger his domestic programs) and Richard Nixon (who ran on ending the war, and did, but in the process widened the war to give the South Viet Namese a chance, only to be cut off by the post-Watergate Democrat-controlled Congress); or between Jimmy Carter (who by and large favored appeasement and aid that would have had the Soviet Union still going) and Ronald Reagan (who initiated the programs that caused Soviet collapse). These are not matters of minor emphasis; they are major differences of strategy.

To project this into the Terror Wars, consider the probable courses of the two parties, or at least of the two current candidates for the presidency. George Bush's strategy appears to be:

• active overt and covert warfare against Islamist terrorist groups,
  
• active overt warfare against the most prominent state sponsors of terrorism;
  
• aggressive law enforcement and economic actions to weaken or remove terrorist support in countries that we couldn't politically afford to go to war against (such as France),
  
• an attempt at the cultural equivalent of guerilla warfare, by providing an example of a free Arab/Muslim society in Iraq.

On the other hand, it is becoming clear to me that Kerry would be vastly different in many areas:

• Kerry would continue active overt warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, but would likely lessen the overt warfare, particularly in Pakistan and Africa.
  
• Overt warfare against state sponsors of terrorism would be off the table, unless a major attack on US soil could be directly and incontrovertibly traced to a particular country's support. (FYI, state sponsorship of terrorism is rarely so direct; generally there are multiple small threads from many countries which weave together to enable an attack. In addition to Afghanistan, do we attack Germany, Canada, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Syria for 9/11? Do we attack ourselves, since the terrorists were based here for some time?) It may even be the case that Kerry would not undertake overt warfare after a major attack unless the UN supported it.
  
• Kerry would likely continue law enforcement and intelligence activities against terrorist groups, but would likely not put effective pressure on countries (particularly European countries) who were uncooperative.
  
• Kerry would likely stick it out in Iraq, but without the stick of "and you're next", the ability of the example to change the other Arab/Muslim cultures would be much lessened.

In some ways, Steven is correct: a Kerry foreign policy would have much of the same broad surface appearance that the Bush foreign policy does. Kerry would acknowlege terrorism as a major problem, and would not withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan. But on every other issue, his response would likely be much weaker, if at all, than President Bush's response has been. The effect of this would be to return us very nearly to a Clinton-style foreign policy, with the emphasis all on domestic issues, and fighting terrorism seen by the executive branch mostly in terms of how it affects votes in key districts.

The result would be disastrous. Even if another Republican administration - or a more savvy and dedicated Democrat administration - were to later renew the fight strongly, our enemies would be encouraged to hold out. They would be convinced that we do have short attention spans, and will eventually give them time to regroup. In the meantime, our coalition partners would face declining support from America, combined with their current active internal opposition movements, which would make it very difficult for parties which take a similar view to President Bush's to remain in power.

Mirror, Mirror

Has anyone else noticed the strange tendency on the Left these days to blame people for the Left's mistaken before-hand impressions?

Example:

Left: Iraq is not an imminent threat; we cannot attack them.
President Bush: It will be too late to attack Iraq if we wait until the threat is imminent.
[time delay]
Left: Bush LIED: he claimed the threat was imminent!

OK, that's an easy one, but I'm seeing these more and more lately. Such as:

Left: Terrorism isn't a war issue; it's a law enforcement issue.
President Clinton (before he left office; he has commendably changed his statements since 9/11): Terrorism isn't a war issue; it's a law enforcement issue.
President Bush (before 9/11): Terrorism may be a law enforcement issue, and that is how we're treating it for now, but we have to see if that's the right way to approach the issue.
[time delay, during which is 9/11]
President Bush: Well, it's clearly a war issue now.
Left: Bush LIED: he claimed terrorism was a law enforcement issue, and now he's treating it as a war!

There are many more. The phenomenon is interesting; especially because the press in general does not call people on this kind of illogic.

Let's Elect Kerry...

...and fight the Terror Wars in the courts.

Clarke Inconsistencies

What is it about writing a partisan book during an election season that makes someone retract everything they've said on an issue previously? Well, Richard Clarke certainly appears to be a good match for the Kerry campaign: the Bush administration ignored terrorism by doing exactly what Clinton was doing, while reviewing the strategy and increasing funding by a factor of five.

Bleah: 7 more months of this crap!

UPDATE (3/25): Also see the Washington Post, hardly a right-wing cheerleading squad, where Rich Lowry quite convincingly shows Clarke's inconsistencies.

Interesting Conclusion

So a little less than 3/5 of Americans apparently believe that John Kerry will say anything to get elected, and 1/3 do not believe that. Yet 38% (low mark, assuming Nader in the race) would vote for him anyway. This indicates that, bare minimum, 5% of voters believe Kerry is probably lying, pandering or distorting, and would still like to see him be President. Wow.

What are You?

Apparently, John Kerry was asked a question of John Kerry at a PA campaign event:

A Republican business owner here in this November battleground state and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had the same questions Sunday for Senator John Kerry: Which foreign leaders told you they support your campaign, and when did you meet with them?

The questions, in a volatile exchange at a forum here and in an interview on Fox News Sunday, stemmed from a comment that Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, made last Monday at a Florida fund-raiser. It was the second time in recent days that stray comments by Mr. Kerry diverted attention from his themes of creating jobs and providing health insurance.

"I just want an honest answer," Cedric Brown, 52, who owns a small sign company, told Mr. Kerry.

"Were they people like Blair or were they people like the president of North Korea?" he asked, referring to the British prime minister, Tony Blair. "Why not tell us who it was? Senator, you're making yourself sound like a liar."

Kerry's response was classic ad hominem: when confronted by a good question, he attacked the questioner's identity and motives:

As many in the crowd shouted at Mr. Brown to "shut up," Mr. Kerry, a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the protests against it, calmly promised to answer all queries, no matter the tone. Then he turned the tables.

"Are you a Democrat or a Republican — what are you?" he asked. "You answer the question."

Well, I would like an answer, too, Mr. Kerry. What am I? I am an American. What are you? You answer the question.

After Mr. Brown said he voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, Mr. Kerry added: "See? Democracy works both ways."

Yes, yes it does. Oh, well, I figured it was a long shot:

There are a couple of things that disqualify a candidate for my vote immediately. For example, being a pathological liar (think Clinton or Nixon) or too opportunistic a liar (think Johnson or Daschle). Kerry is likely not a pathological liar, but he seems an excessively opportunistic liar (well beyond the norm for a politician).

Kerry's first hurdle will be to convince me he's not an excessively opportunistic liar. To do so, he'll need some really good explanations for his past behavior - in particular, his part in VVAW & his recent wildly-veering positions on issues.

This is What They Were Afraid Of

Over the weekend, to virtually no notice from the UN or the Western Press, both Syria and Iran have been embroiled in violent turmoil. (It should be noted that more people have been killed in Syria, apparently, than in the Madrid bombings.) When the Left in America and Europe, the UN and the Arab/Muslim governments of the Middle East talk about US actions endangering the "stability" of the Middle East, it is precisely this that they are worried about: that the Arabs and Muslims oppressed by their own governments will ask for the very Liberty we take for granted, at the expense of the tyrants.

Victory and Defeat in the Terror Wars

The Terror Wars, in the sense of all of those wars connected to the attacks of September 11, which finally woke America to her danger, began in 1993, though the seeds were sown in 1979 (when the Iranian revolution replaced the Shah with a theocracy) and when the Saudi ruling family made a deal with the Wahhabi sect of Islam to spread radical Islamism world-wide, in exchange for legitimacy at home. But in 1993, the first attack on a Western power, aimed at the restoration of the Caliphate under the control of radical Islamists, was made at the World Trade Center.

The bomb planted in the basement of the WTC by Ramzi Youssef was intended to bring down the WTC, thus damaging the US economy and forcing our withdrawal from the Middle East. It failed in its primary goal, but succeeded in other ways. Most notably, it increased recruiting for al-Qaida, and gave serious "street cred" to Osama bin Laden. Because the US failed to respond, the jihadis could (and did) claim to have humbled the US, and shown her weakness, after the humiliation of the Iraq war in 1991. The Battle of Mogadishu, the "Black Hawk Down" incident, further showed the weakness of America, and their inability to sustain casualties among even their soldiers. Or so argued the jihadis.

Further attacks came: against the troops quartered at Khobar towers, against the embassies in Africa, against the USS Cole. In each case, the American response was to take it. If anything was even attempted to strike back at the jihadis, those attempts were feeble, distracted, and ultimately both meaningless and powerless. These were all, in short, very helpful for the jihadi recruiters: here we are, they would say, killing Americans/Christians/Jews - civilians and soldiers - and there is no response. Each of these attacks were clear victories of a sort for the jihadis, because while they did not produce the immediate effect of driving America from the Middle East (the first stated goal of al-Qaida, the second being to remove the insufficiently-Islamic governments of countries in the Middle East in favor of Taliban-like states), they did make it harder to obtain public support for actions in the Middle East. Even supporting sanctions against Iraq was a minority struggle before 9/11 (despite the cries for containment of Iraq after the war in Afghanistan, by the very same people who wanted to remove the sanctions before the war in Afghanistan).

In retrospect, 9/11 was a serious mistake for the jihadis: it awoke America at last to our danger, and brought down the full might of America directly on al-Qaida's head. The results have been stunning. By huge margins the public supported the destruction of al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by large margins supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In these operations, the jihadis lost their most important base (Afghanistan) and one of their three most prolific state sponsors (Iraq; the others being Iran and Saudi Arabia). Moreover, the jihadi efforts in Pakistan were somewhat set back, although that is hardly a settled issue even now.

Bali, too, was a setback for the jihadis, despite the death toll. It made the Australians more, not less, determined to stick out the war against terrorists, and provided a concrete example that it wasn't just the US that was the target.

Madrid could have had the same effect as Bali, of strengthening the will of the Europeans to carry on in the face of this threat to Western civilization. Indeed, it could have been sufficient to bring even France more in line with the position of Bush, Blair, Aznar, Howard and others - of the war-not-crime Coalition, for lack of a better term.

But it does not appear that will be the case. With evidence pointing more and more clearly towards al-Qaida as the perpetrators of the Madrid bombings, Spanish voters changed their position and elected the Socialists, who apparently take the position of withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq unless the UN is in charge. In other words, the Spanish voters have (at least for the time being) moved the country's government from the war-not-crime position to the crime-not-war position.

Glenn Reynolds has two excellent summaries, here and here.

What concerns me the most about all of this, though, is not the change in Spain's position, but the message that change sends to the terrorists. Before the bombings, Aznar's PP was likely to win the elections by a 3-5 point margin. Instead, the Socialists won by a convincing margin. The only change in the interim was the bombings. Now, clearly the European (and American) Left is delighted: Spain is coming around to their way of thinking.

The message sent to the terrorists is this: if an American ally whose popular support of the alliance is held in place by narrow margins suffers a mass-casualty attack just before those elections, it is possible to change the outcome of that election in your favor, and cause the party most favorable to you to win the election. Certainly, the Left is ready to attribute any act of terrorism to the US, or the Jews, or Bush - anyone except the actual attackers.

It is unlikely that the jihadis planned a series of pre-election attacks (it's not just the US and Spain having critical elections this year), though it's clear that they did plan the Madrid attacks with the Spanish election in mind. But it would certainly be possible to organize such attacks in Europe, and with 8 months to go, we might see such an attack in America.

If it does come about, I hope we are strong enough not to decide to start feeding the crocodile.

UPDATE: See also Tacitus, with much more depth on why Spain was, is and will be a target regardless of what the Spanish government does.

UPDATE (3/15): Expat Yank's take is also interesting, pointing out the hypocrisy of Spanish socialists complaining for years about the Franco-British appeasement of the German and Italian fascists during the Spanish Civil War, then undertaking teh exact same kinds of actions with regards to the Islamists.

UPDATE (3/15): Jacob Levy's take is different. I personally don't think that changes of political parties to one's with policies different from the (pro-US position) current ruling party make this a defeat. I think that the problem of the change is that it wouldn't have happened, apparently, absent the attacks; and given a strategy that worked, al Qaida is likely to use it again - during elections or even major decision-making cycles.

Would it affect US decisions on whether to go to war with Iran if such a discussion resulted in several mass-casualty attacks in the US, and if so how? Moreover, would we be tempted to simply avoid making such decisions for fear of "provoking" (don't thing that won't be the word choice of the Left!) attacks?

Meaningless Political Statement

Ravenwood is annoyed by the recent Senate maneuver to force tax cuts (including making temporary cuts permanent) to require a 60 vote supermajority to pass. I was too, for about 30 seconds, but then I realized...

This is a meaningless political statement. In addition to being very likely to be removed by the House in conference, it already takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. With the soft filibuster rule, where the Senator doesn't actually have to maintain the floor (just to announce his intent to filibuster), cloture comes into effect. Cloture (stopping discussion preparatory to voting) requires 60 votes.

So I am still annoyed, but my annoyance is of a different kind: what kind of political statement are the Republicans attempting to make? The Democrats are likely hoping to embarass the President. Are the Republicans? If so, I'm OK with that; I don't hold Party discipline to be somehow sacrosanct.

If, on the other hand, the message is that tax cuts are a bad idea, then these Senators have gotten it completely backwards, and need to be removed from office by the voters (along with, frankly, many of the Democrats). Rebalancing the budget by raising taxes is a drag on the economy, and could cause a double-dip recession (though at this point it's more likely that it would just slow the ongoing recovery). However, rebalancing the budget by killing off expensive, wasteful, or duplicative programs instead would have a salutory effect on the economy and (inherently) on personal liberty. (If you need an explanation of why that is, look here.)

Bad Ideas or Bad People

Jerry Doyle (Garibaldi on Babylon 5), hosting a radio talk show on KLIF, just said "Republicans think Democrats have bad ideas. Democrats think Republicans are bad people." That sounds about right to me.

Bad Timing and Budgets

Phil Carter points to a Washington Post story on some in Congress moving to cut defense expenditures. It's pretty bad timing, one might say, to cut defense expenditures during a war. Whether or not the priorities within the Defense Department are right is another thing, but I cannot see a justification for shrinking the Pentagon budget when we're at war and overcommitted as it is. Worse, though, is the lack of any reference to put the numbers in perspective. Here are the numbers, from the FY2005 budget summary, against a GDP of $12402 billon:

Category	Raw Amount (Billions)	% of Budget	% of GDP
Defense Spending	429	17.9%	3.46%
Non-Defense Discretionary Spending	485	20.2%	3.91%
Social Security	510	21.3%	4.11%
Medicare/Medicaid	478	19.9%	3.85%
Other Non-Discretionary Spending	320	13.3%	2.58%

In other words, the total Federal drain on the economy is a little under 19.4%. Of that, both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid consume larger parts of the budget than defense spending. In fact, between them, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security consume about 8% of the entire economy, twice as much as defense...in wartime...before the Social Security crisis comes about and before last year's ill-advised prescription drug benefit hits Medicaid with full force.

So what the Post is trying to do is misdirection: focusing negative attention on programs that Post's editors disfavor, while ignoring the much larger expenditures for programs the Post's editors favor. But it's deja moo (I've seen this bull before), because this is the exact same kind of argument made in the past to justify cutting defense to the bone, and consequences to the nation be damned.

Well, during the Cold War that was ill-considered, but during time of war it's execrable. (I'm sure the Post's editors can look the word up, if it loses them.)

Preemptive Weariness

Kevin Drum has a post that most anybody of any political stripe could agree with. In an unbiased way, he lists the various attacks and counterattacks already going on in the presidential election, and concludes with:

I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but I'm tired. And this was only the first week.

Eight more months to go.

Yep. Eight more months to go.

How Kerry Could Win My Vote

After reading Kevin Drum's site, I found myself wondering if there is anything President Bush could say or do to win Kevin's vote. That led me to wonder if there was any way that Senator Kerry could win my vote.

There are a couple of things that disqualify a candidate for my vote immediately. For example, being a pathological liar (think Clinton or Nixon) or too opportunistic a liar (think Johnson or Daschle). Kerry is likely not a pathological liar, but he seems an excessively opportunistic liar (well beyond the norm for a politician).

Kerry's first hurdle will be to convince me he's not an excessively opportunistic liar. To do so, he'll need some really good explanations for his past behavior - in particular, his part in VVAW & his recent wildly-veering positions on issues.

Once the elimination questions are over, the next thing I think about is a candidate's stand on issues of critical importance. There are only a few of these for me that matter for the President:

• Protection of the US from foreign enemies
  
• Protection of the Constitution against domestic attempts to circumvent or abrogate it
  
• Lessening the size - and in particular the intrusiveness - of the Federal government

So far Kerry has done little to convince me that he will be better than President Bush on any of these issues, even with the somewhat low bar set by President Bush on the last two of those.

I doubt that we will ever get to the point that I need to list the secondary issues that are of import to me. If Kerry can convince me that he will be better at prosecuting the war on terror, better at defending the Constitution against attacks against it (particularly by activist judges who read their prejudices into law) and/or lessening the influence of Federal government, I'll be glad to start listing lesser issues that will become more important in helping me decide.

The Role of Drugs in Leftist Campaign Strategy

Whatever drugs Kevin Drum is taking must be very effective at changing one's perception of reality.

UPDATE: Pejman saves me the trouble of responding in detail.

What's at Stake

Victor Davis Hanson explains what's at stake in this year's election.

Just as a presidency of earlier ossified liberals like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale probably would have led to support of a utopian nuclear freeze and subsequent Russian intimidation of Europe, unilateral cuts in military preparedness, and acquiescence to the Soviet Union, so too the election of John Kerry may well undo much of what has been achieved these last three years as we return to the old, normal way of doing business.

With Howard Dean gone, Kerry realizes that suddenly he must move rightward to sound tougher than George Bush. Finally, he seems to understand that every northern liberal Democrat in the last 30 years who ran to the left on national security lost badly — like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. And so Mr. Kerry abruptly will have to talk grandly of what he would have done to make us more secure. Yet a better guide is his own record in opposing defense programs, in harboring a chronic suspicion of using American force, and his own contradictory past votes about deployments to the Middle East.

More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come.

If White House politicos figured that many who were angered about out-of-control federal spending and immigration proposals would grumble, but not abandon Mr. Bush — given the global stakes involved after September 11, and the specter of a new alternative foreign policy far to the left of that of a Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright — then they were absolutely right.

If Lieberman had been the Democrat choice for President, my vote would have been up for grabs. At the least, I would not have worried much about Lieberman winning. As it is, I'm very unsettled at the possibility of Kerry winning; not so much for what will happen in the next 4 years, as the 10 or 15 after that. (Hat tip to Porphyrogenitus, from an article which also has a bit from Lieberman which explains why I feel about him the way that I do.)

UPDATE: Here's more, via Pejman. Is Kerry really serious here (or anywhere?): Kerry voted for the war in Iraq because he believed that President Bush didn't mean what he said, and because the President didn't lie (presumably, as Kerry believes the President should), the President implicitly lied? WTF???

That's Easy

The Independent has an article which starts:

If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.

Unfortunately for President Bush-haters around the world, only the 200 million United States citizens of voting age will have that right - and the outcome is anything but sure.

Well, let's see, if the whole world could vote for President, the winner would be the candidate who promised to take money from the rich (the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel, etc) and give to the poor (the Arabs, the Africans, the impoverished nations of Asia and Central/South America, etc). In other words, the Democrat would win every time. Just like in domestic politics, why work for something when others are willing to give it to you for free?

Curious

Isn't slamming President Bush for supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a bit like lambasting your State's governor for scoffing at the Commerce Department's latest changes to the CAFE standards? I mean, the president has zero input on a Constitutional amendment:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

The 2-Party Canard

Jeff Jarvis at Buzzmachine defends the two-party system in America. He gets it completely wrong. Here is the core of his argument:

When it comes to the presidency, only one person can win. When it comes to Congress, for that matter, only two parties can efficiently win, given our system of majorities and supermajorities needed to get the work of the people done and given the fact that governments won't fall because of any legislature's failures or whims and given the size of the country and the cost of running for office and marketing a message here. The same system operates down to the state and local levels.

And that system works. It is more stable and effective than any other you can name.

But, again, the system forces us to make a choice. We get a long time to make that choice. We get a long (albeit too long and too expensive) campaign season to push and support (and defeat) candidates. We get to push special-interest candidates to push the agendas they represent. That is how we build coalitions; that is how diverse interests get represented; that is how change erupts. That is why, for example, Al Sharpton and Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman, losers all, are telling people voters that the best way to change the system and get represented is to do it from within the party, not without. They all tried to win the top spot. But they lost. Yet they all believe they influenced the debate and the election and the winners. So votes for them were still votes for the left and not votes discarded.
[snip]
[T]the system works. The two-party system works.

Sharpton, Dean and Lieberman "are telling people voters [sic] that the best way to change the system and get represented is to do it from within the party, not without" because they are partisans. They are, first and foremost, representatives of their political party, not represenatives of the voters as a whole, or of the country as a whole. Sadly, even some of the people elected President only represent their party in real terms. Some people cannot rise above that. (Nixon and Clinton are the two most obvious recent examples.)

But none of the stability of our system comes from the number of parties we have. If we had 25 parties in the House and 8 in the Senate, with varying numbers of representatives and senators, the system would not destabilize. Any given bill would either be voted on by a majority of each chamber, and thus pass, or would not, and thus fail. The stability of our system comes from the fact that the executive is not a subset and servant of the legislative, and thus the President cannot be removed by the legislature for failing to do what the legislature wants done. (See Italy between 1950 and 1980) for an example of how this works when a few major and a large number of minor parties have fundamental, unbridgable differences can paralyze a government in a parliamentary system.

So let's look at some hypotheticals. To make it easy, we'll use three parties, assume strict party discipline (bye bye Chaffee, McCain and Miller), and only consider the Senate. Party A has 48 senators, party B has 38 senators and party C has the remaining 14 senators.

Hypothetical 1 - Committee assignments: It's time for the organizing sessions. Absent dealmaking, each party will vote for its own, and no one will get the required majority; so there'll be dealmaking. Party C could throw in with either A or B, and that would create the majority needed to assign chairmanships and such. So both A and B would be compelled to offer a good deal to C. Alternatively, if C turned out to be, say, the American Nazi party or the Black Panther party, A and B could band together to deny any effective power to C. In other words, some kind of deal would be made, and committee assignments would be handed out. If A were to offer the best deal to C, but were to do something antithetical to C during the course of the legislative session, C could "defect" to B, thus changing the committee memberships and assignments. This happens now, but rarely. (The last example I can think of was Jim Jeffords' move from Republican to independent.) But even if this happened, the courts would still go on with the law they had before, and the executive would still consider with the power and budget it had before.

Hypothetical 2 - Advise and consent: The President submits a judge or a treaty for the approval of the Senate. The Senate votes. No difference from now, except that it is likely that the President would have to give some concessions to one or more parties (such as placing some of their members as cabinet secretaries) in order to get other choices approved.

Hypothetical 3 - Lawmaking: There would have to be more deals in order to get a bill passed. The largest party would still need minor-party support to get bills passed, so the amount of pork in the budget would likely go up. On the other hand, it's likely that fewer bills would get passed, causing a net increase in personal liberty. The lawmaking process would get harder to follow as it happened, but there wouldn't be any substantive differences from a 2-party system.

Hypothetical 4 - Impeachment: Given the fact that the Vice President is elected on the same ticket as the President, a party coup is not possible (the President would be replaced with a member of the same party if the President were removed). As a result, impeachments would likely continue to be extraordinary events, and convictions likely still unheard of.

The dynamic of the House would be similar, if more contentious.

The presidential elections would differ in important ways, presuming that the parties had different amounts of influence in different regions. In particular, the electoral college would suddenly take on a vast new relevance, and people would begin to understand its true relevance to our system (which relevance is masked by having a winner-take-all two-party system). Likely, the presidential candidates would have to do considerably more reaching outside their party bases. On the good side, this would encourage moderation, while on the bad side, it could encourage blatant pandering.

But in sum, there would not be a destabilization of the system. The president would continue to be elected as he is now, and would serve outside the vicissitudes of any turmoil in the legislature, while the legislators themselves would continue to pass laws, just with more effort required.

The stability of our political system is not because we don't have more than two major parties; it's because we don't have a parliamentary system.

Frankly, there's only one point of agreement between me and Nader: our votes are not the inherent right of any given political party. They have to earn them, and when they fail us, we should look elsewhere.

Actually, British author Douglas Adams had a great take on this. In one of his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, he noted a system with lizards and robots. The lizards were in power and horribly oppressed the robots. But it wasn't a dictatorship; it was a true republic. Why did the robots keep voting in the lizards? Because if they voted for the robot, the wrong lizard might win.

Don't Mess With What You Don't Understand

John Hawkins of Right Wing News and I would agree on many things. But not, apparently, on gay marriage - and in particular on the idea of a "defense of marriage" amendment to the Constitution. Hawkins thinks it's a good idea; and after all, the public supports it. While I'm sure that Mr. Hawkins would disapprove of a number of things the public basically supports (including abortion pretty much on demand) being written into the Constitution, I would actually like to approach this in a more fundamental way.

The purpose of the Constitution is to define the nature and limits of government, in particular, of the Federal government. There is exactly one instance in the Constitution of a prohibition on individuals: the prohibition on ownership of slaves. There is exactly one individual crime defined in the Constitution: treason (and that is defined specifically to limit the power of government to call any actions against the current government "treason"). The Constitution is intended to create an environment in which society can evolve as necessary, renewing itself and reinventing itself according to the best judgement of its members. The Constitution is not and never was - and if we are wise never will be - used to define the shape and parameters of society.

I oppose a "defense of marriage" amendment to the Constitution because I oppose any and all attempts to remove contentious issues from the normal political realm and place them beyond reasonable chance of representative change. (For the same reason, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, despite my general agreement with the outcome.)

They Almost Write Themselves

Here's the ad I'd love to see run against Kerry during the campaign. Since it's an attack ad (which are fair game when Democrats run them, but bad when they target Democrats), this would have to come from some group not directly connected to the Bush campaign:

[Distinguished older gentleman, preferably black and preferably an amputee, for maximum effect, in VFW cap and/or a vest with service ribbons, being interviewed. You don't actually see or hear the interviewer.]

[Disgusted tone of voice] Of course I remember John Kerry. He came home from 'Nam and started working for the enemy. John Kerry told the Congress that I and all of my fellows - his very own brothers in service - were war criminals. John Kerry got up with Hanoi Jane Fonda and denounced as war criminals our boys who were being tortured in Communist prisons. John Kerry betrayed us. John Kerry betrayed me. Yeah, I remember John Kerry.
[pause for "question"]
[Look of astonishment and matching tone of voice] For President! You gotta be kidding me!
[fade to black, with white block letters: "Would you trust John Kerry in the White House?"]

Kerry is going to lose, and lose big, because that is milder than most of the attacks that he'll suffer, and Kerry has no positive message to counter those attacks with. And this could be one of a series, and they could all be real vets, and they could all be real and unscripted interviews. The war records of the people in the ads could be played. So Kerry can mention Viet Nam all he wants, but the voters won't see his service, they'll see his post-war record. A lot of vets of more recent wars could also be interviewed, about equipment that helped them win their war, and how John Kerry voted to stop funding for that equipment that saved their lives.

If his entire campaign is that Bush is overblowing the threat of terrorism, you'll see ads featuring the WTC and the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA, with slogans like "Were we missing something on September 11, or was John Kerry?" Frankly, I don't care what the polls are now. I want to see what happens when once Kerry wraps up the nomination. It will be brutal, and the Democrat response will basically be to whine. Whining doesn't play well in Presidential elections.

The thing is, there are lots of issues I have with how the Republicans do things. And they don't matter at all in comparison to ensuring that I don't get killed by terrorists. The only Democrat candidate whom I would have trusted with that at all was Lieberman, and he's out of the running. So even if I thought the above ads unfair (and I don't, particularly in comparison to this sort of calumny), it would not change the fact that the current Democrat leadership and establishment are fundamentally unserious about defending me from foreign enemies.

And as long as that is the case, the Democrats can expect to lose, and lose big.

Strange Evaluation Standard

Phil Carter of Intel Dump does not have comments on his blog, so I will post my question here. Phil said:

Now that the pay stubs and retirement records have been released, we may have started to get a handle on the *quantity* of the President’s National Guard service. These records look inconclusive right now, especially about the summer of 1972, but let’s stipulate for the moment that this issue will eventually be resolved. The records being released tonight will probably shed a lot of light on this question.

The rest of the President’s personnel records – particularly his evaluation reports for the entire period of duty – are as important because they indicate the *quality* of his service.
- Was he really the kind of junior officer that we now want to be Commander-in-Chief?
- Was he, to use the term of art, a "sh*t-hot" pilot?
- Was then-Lieutenant Bush a natural leader? An effective officer?
- Did the President do his duty, or did he just show up for duty?

The evaluation reports will show all of this. Generally speaking, all such reports are written positively, with degrees of praise indicating the quality of an officer. (Example: a slacker officer's report says he "performed his duties well" or "met the standard", plus a lot of boilerplate language. A stud officer's report says he/she "performed his duties in an outstanding manner" and "always exceeded or set the standard".) Damning by faint praise is common in officer evaluation reports where an officer's performance is mediocre, but not so bad as to merit being spiked on the report. So you might have to engage in some interpretation to divine what his evaluations really mean. But the contents of these evaluations are relevant, because they will indicate the quality of the President's performance. And to me, these evaluations of his quality are more important than whether he missed an occasional drill.

There are a few things I could comment on, but my real curiosity is with this quote: "Was he really the kind of junior officer that we now want to be Commander-in-Chief?"

Would it not be better to ask, "Has he been the kind of Commander-in-Chief that we would want to be Commander-in-Chief?" It's not like he's Kerry - with no record as CinC to run on. You can actually judge the President by how he's actually performed his duties. Why do you need or even want to look at his record as a junior officer in performing such an evaluation?

The only answer that I can come up with is that a reasonable evaluation of President Bush's record shows him to be a fine - far better than average - CinC, and that this conclusion is inimical to Phil's built-in preference. For example, note the goal post moving from here (these records should be available and would prove Bush did his duty) to here (why don't people remember him?). Oh, they do. Will the next tactic now be that these are not reliable witnesses?

UPDATE (2/18): Armed Liberal comments on Phil's (related) op-ed in the Chicago Tribune.

Mark Steyn is Brutal

But on target:

Next to these deceptions [ed: he's referring to John Kerry and Max Cleland] — and self-deceptions — what are Dems hoping to pin on Mr. Bush? Thanks to John Kerry in his Hanoi Jane period, Vietnam was a disaster for America that gave the establishment a wholly irrational fear of almost every ramshackle Third World basket-case on the planet.
Look at what everyone from Arthur Schlesinger to Chris Matthews wrote about the "unconquerable" Afghans only two years ago. That defeatism was the Kerry legacy from the '70s: a terrified, Kerrified America. If he wants to fight Campaign 2004 on Vietnam, then, as he would say, bring it on.

I'll take anything written by Ann Coulter with a grain of salt - she's the Republican version of James Carville - and I don't have any knowledge of Max Cleland's Viet Nam service beyond the recent he-said/she-said that Coulter provoked, so I will not address that. But with Kerry, it's obvious to me that he is unfit to lead this nation, and the fact that he lies - there's no other word for it; misrepresents is too mild - his positions on Viet Nam and every war and defense program since is tragic in our current situation, because it means that we don't have a loyal opposition this year - and in war more than at any other time, we need one.

The Past is Prologue

I was going to make a rather longish post about John Kerry's anti-war protests, votes against defense spending and intelligence spending, flip-flops on various wars and other important issues and so on. I was going to talk about how the Democrats want to hold dubious actions from 30 years ago against President Bush, while handwaving and excusing things John Kerry did 30 minutes ago. I was going to write this, but then James Lileks wrote it a little more concisely:

I don’t care what John Kerry said when he was 25.

I care about what John Kerry says today . . . about what he said when he was 25.

And that, ladies and gentlement, is the difference between a professional writer and a literate guy with a webpage.

One Paragraph

Peggy Noonan is asking for a paragraph which defines the case for re-electing George Bush. (Hat tip: Porphyrogenitus) Here's mine:

This election takes place at the dawn of a new world. Terrorists attack around the world, striking not just at America, but at the idea of Liberty and at all people who would be free; the economies of all nations are increasingly intertwined; at home, we are polarized and unsure of ourselves and our neighbors. This election is a choice between the politics of American greatness, of Liberty, of growth and of hope; and the stale leftovers of a bygone era of international retreat, of government intrusion, of taxing and spending, and of division and malaise.

Who Watches the Watchers?

The fundamental reason for the existence of an independent press (from the viewpoint of citizens of a free republic) is to examine the actions of government, put them into context, and inform the judgement of the citizens.

It's hardly a secret that Western media, by and large, fails miserably at that task. For example, the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s could have been detected and possibly averted, had any of the myriad reporters in DC actually spent any time looking at the records at the various banking regulators. No one did. Reading through paperwork - government forms at that - is hardly a glamorous occupation, especially when 99.99% of the time there's nothing interesting in the paperwork. But you cannot know what's going to be interesting unless you have the background, and you cannot get the background unless you do the boring stuff that doesn't get you noticed. If there's anything that media cadres are in reality, it's addicted to glamour. Watergate taught them the wrong lesson about their jobs.

Donald Sensing calls attention to another example. The al-Zarqawi memo capture recently in Iraq is analyzed by Mr. Sensing here. Why indeed was it from our enemy, rather than our reporters, that we got this in-depth analysis of the results of our strategy in Iraq? Were the reporters too busy looking for sexy angles and horrible aftermaths (and, most importantly, something - anything - to use against the President) to actually find out what's going on? I hate to say it, but the question answers itself.

President' Bush's National Guard Service

So lots of people were asserting that President Bush didn't serve in the National Guard the way he was supposed to (calling him a "deserter" and "AWOL"). Now that the pay records have been released, some have gone silent, and some have decided that it doesn't make a difference. For example, look at this press conference transcript on the issue, where a reporter is trying to push the idea that being paid doesn't mean the President served (even though, actually, it means exactly that in the National Guard):

Q It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.

Q I'm not interested in what he recalls. I'm interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I just answered that question.

Q You have not answered that question. You --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.

Q No, so the answer is, "no"?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That's what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days.

Q Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be --

MR. McCLELLAN: These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served.

Q Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I don't see any dates for that.

MR. McCLELLAN: It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.

Q But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I don't even see any pay dates during that period.

MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period.

Q They do?

MR. McCLELLAN: There's October on there, there's November on there, and then there's January on there, as well, in '73. There's some pay dates on there.

Q Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments in October; they show payments in November.

Q But just because he's paid doesn't mean that he served and worked there, does it?

Q Come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, like I said, people call on us to release the records. We didn't even know they still existed until just the other day. Now we've released the records, which document that the President fulfilled his duties. And now people are trying to move the goalpost even more.

And the other amazing line of questioning was this one:

Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?

MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.

Q Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people -- you know, comrades-in-arms --

MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.

Q But you said you were looking for people -- and I take it you didn't find any people?

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we -- Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.

Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents --

Q Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on --

MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --

Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When --

Also, just for grins, it appears that Melinda Hawkish was at the press conference:

Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting? What was he doing after he was honorably discharged?

I can't believe that this issue is still out there. Well, this (hat tip: Kim du Toit) should put the issue to rest. But probably won't.

Right Evaluation - Wrong Solution

President Bush's State of the Union speech included this bit:

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

He is absolutely correct: when judges remove political issues (abortion, school regulation, or marriage benefits) from the political process, the most complete response by the people is to amend the Constitution in order to reverse the court. Of course, people could just ignore the court's rulings, as well, but that would set up all kinds of issues as to when it was and was not appropriate to ignore the court.

However, while I believe that the courts should stay out of the political issue (the definition of marriage and the benefits to be conferred, if any, on married people), I don't believe that the "Defense of Marriage" act nor the proposed amendment to define marriage are good. I believe that civil marriage should be different from religious marriage, and a civil marriage should be available to any consenting adults who want one, along with any attendant benefits, or should be available to no one. (That is, there should be no benefits or penalties issued by the government for being married, unless the government recognizes a very broad definition of marriage.)

Still, people seem to be missing the fact that the President is correct that judicial activism on this issue is the wrong way to resolve it.

UPDATE (1/23): Laughingwolf takes a similar view. He points out something important in the process:

Much of the indignation on the right deals with morality, since that is an easy hot-button emotional topic. Yet, this shows the major flaw in their campaign: morality is tied to religion. So, this begs the question of which morality and which religion will be honored? It also begs the question of which religions actually practice what they preach on this issue?

A Reasonable Compromise on Abortion

Bigwig has stated my precise position on abortion. Of course, he said this in June of 2003, and for some reason I left the post on "draft" instead of "publish", so it's just showing up now.

Man in the Middle

I can relate to Michael Totten's feelings on political parties:

Regular readers of this site know that I can relate to Jeff’s experience and frustration. And the end result of all this has been for me to finally agree and say to heck with it, I'm not one of you after all. I'm an Independent now. And despite the fact that I still hold several liberal opinions, I no longer feel any sense of loyalty or affection for the Democratic Party.

I come from the opposite end. I was raised in a conservative family (though my father was and still is a registered Democrat). When I started to learn to think for myself, it was the 1980s, and I found I was what would once have been called a Rockefeller Republican. In the time when the "religious right" (wrong on both counts) was gaining deeper and broader control of the Republicans, I couldn't stay with the Party. (And I won't go back, because the Party's positions on issues I care about are not a great fit.)

I became a Libertarian, but they were losing me even before 9/11, by being so unable to articulate a set of positions that would work in the real world. Their isolationism completely lost me after 9/11, and I'll no more go back there than I would to the Republicans.

I cannot go to the Democrats, because of their wallowing in Leftists immiseration as a kind of reflexive purging of self-induced guilt about being part of a culture that has something to offer the world besides misery.

I cannot find a political party that accomodates me. I am a libertarian, republican, liberal, federalist, free-market (not far away from laissez-faire), interventionalist, natural rights respecting American with no place to go. As Treebeard said, "I am not entirely on anybody's side, because nobody is entirely on my side." Yep, that about says it all.

Basically, I want the government to be as non-interventionist as possible in the lives and business of individual Americans, while being willing and able to spread Liberty abroad both by example and (in cases where no other method is available and where we are under threat) by force. I want the government to defend my rights, and only intrude so far as to prevent my usurpation or infringement of the rights of others. Provision of services should be minimal at the Federal level, both for tax reasons and because local solutions tend to work out better over the long run, while allowing an out (moving to another State) should regulations become excessive in any given place. I want the government to allow businesses free rein to operate, with just enough regulation to prevent or punish fraud. I want to only have to think about the government on rare occasions, unless I chose to do so. I want the Right to stay out of the front of my pants, and the Left to stay out of the back. I want elections to be meaningless. I want the government to provide a free and secure place for culture to develop, without trying to compel the form of the resultant culture. I want the government to prevent or punish discrimination by government employees, while not tarnishing the private right of free association. I want the government to provide intellectual property rights for a limited time, not perpetually.

I want a political party that would work to bring all of these about. Until then, I'm an independent.

UPDATE (1/8): Aubrey comments.

Excellent

I'm really tired of seeing people who can't win a political fight, even when fighting dirty, resort to the courts. It's good to see them lose there from time to time. Texas will finally get districts drawn by our elected legislature.

The "Ownership Society"

At first sight, this is promising. If the government is going to encourage certain behaviors by policy, it should do so directly.

For example, health insurance is currently tax-deductible - for companies. Were that deduction given to individuals instead, it would completely reshape the health care debate. For example health care portability and the problem of pre-existing conditions would be solved. Incomes would go up, as businesses stopped providing health benefits, and it is likely that not all of that increase would be absorbed by personal insurance costs at least for many workers. The debate over HMOs and such would be vastly different when people were voluntarily choosing who would provide them health care.

If done right, the idea of government giving options to people, rather than to companies (and rather than giving mandates to people) could be a great improvement. I am interested in seeing the proposal.

UPDATE (12/23): Forgot a space in the link tag, so no link. Fixed now.

Thinking About the Next Presidential Election

I'm somewhat of a political junkie (no! it's true!), so I take the position that it's never too early to be thinking about the next presidential election. Frankly, I'm depressed and annoyed.

I will state flat out: there is at this point not a single Democratic candidate that I could reasonably vote for. There's usually one at this point, but he always gets taken out during the primaries. (David Boren or Zell Miller should run, so that I could have a Democrat to think about voting for.) While the Democrat economic policies are usually disastrous or irrelevant, and their environmental policies are usually frivolous at best, these can be forgiven as long as they don't have the power to push their agenda through Congress. (The President is powerful in the short term, but aside from Supreme Court nominations, only the Congress can make long-term directional changes for the country.) What cannot be ignored is the default Democrat position that we should disarm, disengage and pray for peace. There are Democrat candidates who don't think this way (Gephardt I believe falls into this category, as apparently does Lieberman), but they don't do anything for me otherwise, and I don't believe that any of them would be able to appoint an administration that would be able to push through an aggressive foreign policy, because the majority of the Democrat party (from which every significant officeholder would come if any of the current candidates were elected) does not agree with that kind of policy.

Since 9/11, I cannot vote for the Libertarian candidate. The Libertarians have made opposition to war abroad a central position of their party. This is their right, but I cannot vote for them for Federal office as long as this is their stance. (If their candidate repudiates this stance, I'll reconsider.) While I'm normally sympathetic to this position, it's simply not a reasonable alternative in the post-9/11 world. I'd like not to find out one day that Baltimore or Seattle or Dallas no longer exists.

I am not sure about George Bush any more. I thought he was mostly harmless, and in some ways useful, prior to 9/11. I think that his handling of the aftermath to 9/11, including the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, were well planned, well run and the right places to be. But in other ways, the President has been a disappointment to me.

First, he has made no attempt to involve Americans in their own defense. We need to form local militias, organize civil defense and disaster preparedness training and so forth. We need to tell Americans not to rely on government for local defense, because the government simply cannot be everywhere (and we don't want them everywhere). While the President cannot directly control this, he has the bully pulpit, and his leadership would go a long way.

Second, the President has done nothing apparent to provide for the long-term war. We will need to be in Iraq, Syria and probably Saudi Arabia before this is over. While occupation of Iraq may well eventually bring freedom there, we cannot expect to get away without significant intervention from neighboring countries who are threatened by the prospect of a peaceful Iraq with a representative government. Right now, we have no way to really threaten, say, Iran, because we don't have the forces to undertake an offensive, while still holding down unrest in Iraq.

But the President has made no move to stand up more divisions. It takes a few years to do this, and instead we've been relying on Reserves and National Guard. Well, the regular Army is going to have a real problem with reenlistment, because they are spending all of their time deployed without any real recovery time, but this is nothing compared to the Reserves and Guard. We have maybe two to three years before we have a hollow force, unless we reduce our overseas commitments (European interventions and Korea would have to be the first to go, probably) or raise new units. We need at least three more divisions available, to ensure that we can continue our current levels in Afghanistan and Iraq for more than another two or three years. We need more than this if we are going to continue those commitments and maintain a force to threaten Iran or Syria or KSA.

Reimposition of the draft would solve the manpower retention problem, but at a huge cost in American values.

But as it is we appear to be doing nothing about this. And this is foursquare the responsibility of the President. I cannot vote for President Bush unless he can show me that he understands this problem and is working to resolve it. As it is, he seems focused on Medicare and similar issues which, while they need attention, could use less governmental involvement, rather than more. Spending $400 billion over 10 years would be fine if it didn't preclude appropriately sizing and aligning the force structure, but I cannot see the tax cuts, the massive new spending proposals and the war effort all getting done. Right now, the war effort seems to be taking third place, and that's a real problem. In fact, it's enough of a problem that right now I cannot see voting for George Bush next year.

So where does that leave me? I guess it leaves me hoping President Bush will start to show some sense about the long-term problem, and trust the American people enough to make it an election issue. At the same time, I'll be looking into the small parties (smaller even than the Libertarians) to see if there's anyone I can support.

UPDATE (11/25): See also Intel Dump. If these numbers are sustained, the two-year timeframe for personnel shortages will be optimistic; we could see the shortage inside of 18 months.

Valerie Plame

I haven't wanted to say anything about the whole Valerie Plame affair, because it seems so overblown, and because some people are being just a bit over the top about it. Fortunately, I don't have to write about it, because "Jane Galt" has said everything I would have said already.

Actually, there are two things I'll say briefly. The first is that, should it transpire that senior administration officials are actually blowing the cover of CIA agents - even desk analysts - those officials should be fired - not allowed to resign - and very publically, and the President should publically deliver an apology for the misdeeds of officials in his administration. The second is that, should it transpire that there is far more smoke than fire here, and that in fact nothing quite so dastardly as the intentional blowing of operatives' cover for petty political reasons actually happened, the critics who are all over the administration on this issue should apologize in the same fora where they are smearing the President.

Frankly, I don't expect either "should" to come about, though I think it very likely that this is a "more smoke than fire" issue by a long way.

Then get a Backbone

This is not the least bit surprising to me. The Republicans gave the Democrats a green light to kill the Estrada nomination on purely ideological grounds - not even the ideological positions of the candidate: many Democrats voting to kill the nomination had praised Estrada in earlier hearings; but the ideological positions of the President who nominated him. So now the Democrats, having gained much and suffered nothing, are going to repeat the tactic on any measure they can, because the exercise of power in Washington trumps the sense of the end result of exercising the power. If the Republicans aren't willing to make the Democrats actually filibuster nominations and other important votes, they'll need to accept that this tactic will be more widespread. Prediction: the rules will mysteriously change "in the best interests of the Nation and Democracy" as soon as there is a Democrat majority in the Senate.

It's not that the Republicans don't play politics, too; they're just not as good at it.

State of Independence

Michael Totten points to this post with the comment: "Why I am not now, and do not plan to become, a Republican." Fair enough, and I agree. The social radicalism of the Republicans is what turned me completely off to the Republican Party.

Fair's fair, and here are some reasons I cannot be a Democrat. I was going to quote the 2000 Texas Democrat Party platform, but frankly, after I read it, it would have been a waste of time. Take this, for example:

Raise teacher pay and provide a quality state paid health insurance program for every educational employee;

Or this:

Strongly encourage the recruitment of teachers who reflect the state’s diversity, because Texas is a multi-ethnic state and education is enriched through diversity;

Or this:

Keeping handguns and other weapons away from children.

It's just so much effort to take these nice-sounding platitudes, and tie them back to the actual policies being espoused: supporting teachers' unions' demands no matter how unreasonable; affirmative action programs in State hiring; banning of handgun ownership (and certainly the repeal of the concealed carry laws).

You see, the Republican social policy idiots are frank in their idiocy, while the Democrat policy idiots are deceptive. The Democrats (and I speak of the Party, not necessarily individuals who associate with the Party) say nice things, but propose disastrous policies to carry them out. (Affirmative action, banning handguns, and bending over for the teachers' unions are just a part of that. Much more devastating is the general trend towards statism and away from personal responsibility.) It's far easier to link to the product of their policies, rather than go through the considerable effort necessary to take the nice platitudes of the platform and show their consequences in actual policy debate. OK, maybe that's not fair, really, but it is satisfying.

In any case, the Libertarians, like the Republicans, are easy to call out, because they are honest. The policies they espouse which are stupid are spelled right out.

So, really, I'll just be independent of any political party, thanks.

Redistricting

Grim suggests a fairly bone-headed idea for non-partisan districting. To be fair, at least he's thinking about the problem, which is more than our elected representatives are doing. (OK, they're thinking about the problem, too, but about how to take advantage of it rather than how to solve it.)

I am glad that Grim is at least trying to address the problem. Still, there are several reasons that the idea is bone-headed. First, it takes no account of existing political or geographic boundaries, which means that there is no way of keeping constituencies with similar interests together. Second, choosing a point and drawing the lines in the correct way will still provide an ability to somewhat rig the boundaries. Third, the proposal takes no account of the role of the courts in recent redistricting battles (what's to prevent the courts from throwing out the plan altogether and choosing their own initial point and radial increments?). Fourth, the suggestion lets the legislature off the hook. Finally, any legislation that relies on telling people to act in any way other than their best interests, and which would fail if people do act in their best interests, is destined to fail.

I proposed a solution over at Aubrey Turner's blog, in this comments to this post. Here is my full comment:

I've been thinking about this lately, too, and here's what I came up with:

1. All districts must be equal in population, using the US Census data, within 1% of the average of all districts. (That is to say, if the average is 1,345,038 people per district, no district may be larger than 1,358,488 people, nor smaller than 1,331,587 people.
2. The sum of the lengths of all inter-district boundaries must be a minima, except that the boundaries can be adjusted to match existing geographical or political boundaries.
3. No redistricting plan passed by the legislature can be challenged in court, except on a violation of either or both of the first two points, and then only if the plan passed by less than a 2/3 vote. The court's sole discretion would be to declare the plan invalid and require the legislature to re-address the issue.
4. Failure of the legislature to pass a redistricting plan within one year of the need originally arising, would result in the legislature being disbanded, a special election called, and the former members of the legislature being ineligible to stand for re-election.

This would create a process whereby the legislature's ability to play partisan politics over this issue would be reduced, the court's ability to declare a solution would be reduced, and the people would be given the final appeal should the process break down. (At the very least, the idiots not doing their job would get thrown out.)

This idea might, of course, also be bone-headed, and I could just be missing it, but I do think it a better solution than anything else I've yet seen proposed.

Philanthropy?

The Democrats are constantly claiming to represent the common man, like multibillionaire Geore Soros, who intends to put $10 million into a group working to defeat President Bush next year. Clearly, the definition of "philanthropy" has changed from my previous understanding.

Oh, My

Tasty Manatees points to a Rutland (VT) Herald article, containing some of Howard Dean's comments just after 9/11. Dean, then Governor, apparently broached the possibility of some far-reaching civil liberties violations:

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean's attacks on President Bush over civil rights are ringing a bit hollow right about now.

We need more Democrats who are willing to stand against Bush's reckless disregard for our civil liberties. As Americans, we need to stand up and ensure that our laws reflect our values. As President, I will repeal those parts of the Patriot Act that undermine our constitutional rights, and will stand against any further attempts to expand the government's reach at the expense of our civil liberties.

Apparently, though, Dean is OK with reconsidering the First Amendment. OK, then.

The Need for a New Constitution

The purpose of the Constitution is given in the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [protection of natural rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

As this post from Zenpundit points out, there is a significant proportion of the American population that no longer believes in the Constitution, and this comes from both the Left and the Right. Jesse Jackson, Jr. illustrates one pole, while those Republicans who would happily amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage or flag burning, or to make Christianity the official religion of the US, illustrate the other. Even the Supreme Court is getting in on the rewriting, with decisions like Grutter, which held that it's OK to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but only for a while. (One wonders if, at the end of Justice O'Connor's posited time period, if the underlying goal of the university's discrimination has not been achieved, would the Justice then support extending the deadline yet further?)

I really like our Constitution as is, but I suspect that I am in the minority. The reality is, we have not actually been following large portions of the Constitution since the 1930's. The Federal government has been increasingly becoming intrusive on private Liberties, and the States have increasingly been becoming puppets of Federal laws and regulations. (Hence, a State may pass a medical marijuana law, but not prevent the enforcement of Federal regulations banning the use of marijuana.) The combination of redistribution of income (both to individuals via various welfare programs, and to States using mechanisms such as highway funding) and the removal of limits to Federal power (via doctrines such as "interstate commerce refers to anything that happens that might effect the economy" and "the government has a compelling interest to do anything it says it has a compelling interest to do" and "a limited time means any time which is not actually infinite, up to and including 3 billion years" and so on and so on).

It is clear to me that, no matter how much I hate the idea, it is time for the States to invoke their authority under Article V and call a Convention for the purpose of rewriting the Constitution. It is far better for us to have a mediocre Constitution that we actually follow, than an excellent Constitution which we ignore at our leisure.

UPDATE (8/5): ZenPundit comments.

Also, Chris Noble disagrees. I suspect that Chris and I see the Constitution in very similar terms. I, too, believe that we should live up to the Constitution's ideals. I'm not certain that a reconstitution would not live up to those ideals. (OK, if that doesn't mark me as an optimist, nothing will.)

I guess my real hope is that we will rediscover, after arguing through the issues, that we really want to be closer to the spirit of the original Constitution than to today's interpretations (many of which have been arrived at either by narrow agreement, or even over the heads of the people as a whole). I think that this could be achieved, if the standard was set that any Constitution had to pass a 2/3 vote to be reported out of Convention, as well as the requirement to be accepted by the States, presumably via referenda. (I don't think it would be politically possible for most States to address the issue just in their legislatures.)

Even if we ended up rejecting the new Constitution, and staying with the current one, the debate would add immensely to our public life. If we did get a new Constitution, it would almost certainly not contain any truly contentious statements, as these would get washed out between the supermajority requirements in the Convention and the ratification process. Those issues would be thrown back into political play, with the new balance of power (presumably more explicitly tilted towards central government) significantly changing the debate. Again, this would be good for our public life.

Why I'm Not Republican - or a Democrat

Most people just assume I am a Republican. They are wrong. Here is an example of why: the Republicans are once again proposing to ban gay marriage - by Constitutional amendment. (hat tip: Michael Totten)

There are three problems with this:

1. What business does the Federal government have determining what constitutes a marriage?
   
2. Presuming the Federal government had some power over the definition of marriage, why on Earth do they want to put something that minor and piddling in the Constitution?
   
3. How much damage is done to the fabric of the nation by undermining equal treatment under the law?

The fundamental, most basic and deepest underpinning of America is simply this: all citizens are equal before the law. This is the key feature that enables "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to have meaning; for how is life protected, when it can be arbitrarily taken away? What does liberty mean when it is contingent on your behavior fitting certain norms defined by others? How can one even attempt to find their own path to happiness, when they can be arbitrarily deprived of whatever would make them happy?

Without the equal protection of the law, no other right can last very long - not even the most basic and self-evident truths hold, when the government gets to define who is able to enjoy these rights, and who is not, based not on their individual actions, but on some professed belief or membership in some group. This was the singular blemish on the Constitution in the first place: certain groups (Negros and Indians) were defined as unprotected by the law, because of their racial grouping. We fought a war, and slaughtered thousands of our fellow citizens, to get rid of that blemish.

Now we are attempting to add that blemish back in, by Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court decree: it's OK for the government to judge on the basis of race, or on the basis of choice of life partner. Bullshit! It is not OK; it is patently un-American.

Let me be clear. If a person wants not to have a gay person in their house, they are entitled to exclude them. If a private college wants to allow only white students, they are entitled to do so. If the Congressional Republicans want to pass a Constitutional amendment saying that gays cannot choose their life partner, the Congressional Republicans can take a flying leap (as well as a refresher course in equal protection). If the Supreme Court wants to declare that some races are more equal than other, it can also take a flying leap (and the same refresher course).

And isn't it interesting that these two issues came up so close together? Because the would-be dictators on the Right and the would-be dictators on the Left each find equal-protection religion when it comes to the other side's issue. I'm sure that the Republicans were outraged that the Supreme Court even considered breaching the sacred equal protection to give special rights to some groups over others, while the Democrats are equally outraged that the Republicans would consider breaching the sacred equal protection to some groups over others. The only difference between them is that they back different groups.

A pox on both of their sanctimonious and hypocritical houses.

Beaten Like Rented Mules

When President Carter came into office, the military was in utter shock. Viet Nam had been a military victory over the original enemy, the Viet Cong; but the victory had been so pyrrhic, so domestically divisive, and so fragile (in that we never removed the threat of invasion by the N. Vietnamese army) that most Americans didn't realize that it was a military victory at all. When this was combined with the political defeat - not rearming the South, nor remaining to defend them, followed by President Ford abandoning them altogether (not even offshore air support) in the face of the North Vietnamese invasion of 1975 - it led to a complete collapse of confidence in the ability of the military to function. This loss of confidence was prevalent throughout the military at all ranks, in the society at large, and in particular in the foreign/defense policy community.

The Democrats had made their decision by the early 1970s: the military was to blame for all the evils of the Viet Nam war, no credit was to be had by anyone - and particularly not by the Republicans, who had extracted us from Viet Nam (as promised by Nixon in 1968). There is a bit of irony here, in that it was the muscular liberal Democrats - the Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson wing - which had gotten us into Viet Nam, continually escalated our involvement and then refused to carry the war to the North (thus eventually costing us the war). But this wing of the Democratic party was also in the doldrums - in shock at the conduct and outcome of the war, and sidelined by the McGovernites and the radical fringe groups he had brought with him into control of the party.

Carter immediately set about gutting the military, and purging its ranks. This was done by the simple expedient of cutting funding, ignoring his military advisors and publically and frequently talking down to the military establishment.

The foreign/defense policy expertise built up by the Democrats resided in the now-discredited Scoop Jackson wing of the party, and the Carter administration ignored their advice on almost every policy issue of substance. As a result of this and the cost of fighting the war, by the end of the Carter administration, the military had lost a generation of equipment upgrades, had had their warfighting doctrine shattered, and had their reputation publically trampled by their Commander in Chief. The military was in total shock, and the country was not far behind. The economy was also in the toilet (double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates), and the word most used to describe America was "malaise."

President Reagan was not elected by such a broad margin because of the Iran hostage crisis; that was just a symptom of the malaise. Reagan offered hope. Reagan pointed to the vision of our better selves, to the "shining city on a hill," and called on America to become that city. He made us believe that we were better than we thought of ourselves. It really felt like morning in America, after a long, dark night.

One of the things Reagan did was to make it clear that we were going to defeat Communism, to win the Cold War, and that to do this we needed a robust and confrontational foreign policy, and a large, well-equipped and well-led military. Reagan remade the military command structure, brought pride back into military service, upgraded the military's equipment, fixed a large number of logistical problems and gave the military a mission, which brought forth the Air-Land Battle doctrine. In doing all of this, Reagan reached out to the Democrats' Scoop Jackson wing. Today's neo-cons were called "Reagan Democrats" in the early 1980s.

Schools, and even colleges, don't really teach foreign and defense policy. The closest most get is history, and that field has largely been taken over at the academic level by people who fear and distrust not just America, but the idea of America. The foreign and defense policy cadres of a party are trained by the generation that preceeded them. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and the like were trained by the foreign/defense policy wonks of the Johnson administration, who had themselves been trained by the Truman administration.

Because the "Reagan Democrats" left the party in droves, and came over to the Republicans, there was a generational break in policy development within the Democratic party. Perle and Wolfowitz and the like have trained not Democratic, but Republican policy makers. The Democrats simply don't have much expertise left.

The prominent names in the Democratic party for foreign and defense policy would have to be Sam Nunn, Leon Fuerth, and Richard Holbrooke. Sam Nunn seems to be out of politics. (He had been involved with a program at Georgia Tech, but that seems to have been cancelled, or at least scaled back, in the last year or so.) There is no Democratic equivalent to the think tanks and sponsorship and mentoring that allow Republicans to develop and hone the skills and gain the experience needed to craft policy at the highest levels.

Porphyrogenitus comments as well, though I think he misses one point. The pool of people who develop the national grand strategy is very small, and non-partisan. Note that the current grand strategy, that of bringing democratic self-government to failed states, began to take shape under Clinton, with the policies of pre-emption (then called forward engagement) and regime change taking shape. Note that President Bush came in disavowing that strategy, yet has since 9/11 not just embraced it, but extended it, to include the concepts of equivalence (treating sponsors of terrorism as terrorists), denial of nuclear weapons to dictatorships (still being worked out in regards to North Korea, which obtained them before Bush came into office) and ad-hoc coalitions to settle specific problems (replacing reliance on the UN, NATO and other permanent internationalist organizations). Because of the nature under which the grand strategy is developed, it is likely to change slowly and infrequently. By and large, both parties will adopt the goals the grand strategy sets.

The problem is at the level of strategy to implement those goals. It is here that Steven Den Beste's overview plays out. If you accept Steven's summary, as I would venture to say most supporters of the Iraq campaign would, as being plausible, then you basically align with the President's method of waging the greater war on terrorism so far. If not, and most opponents of the war apparently would not, you would want to take a radically different approach. And this is the level at which the Democrats have totally failed to be able to make coherent policy, likely to improve America's security situation.

Instead, this is what passes for Democratic thought on foreign policy. The whole focus is on how wrong America is, how much we are to blame, how irresponsible we are, how we need to make room for the adults (the UN and Europeans) to rule the world. This is just not a policy that the broad majority of Americans will accept. It is the policy that brings people into the streets to protest capitalism, democracy and personal liberty, and it is a policy relies on the hatred of not just America, but the idea of America.

This is not just, as Trent would apparently have it, a problem for the Democrats; it is a problem for America. It's a problem for America precisely because, as long as we are at war and the Democrats don't have a serious foreign policy team, the Republicans will "beat[] them like rented mules." The political competition between the two parties is what keeps the Right from imposing social conformity according to their religious doctrine, and the Left from imposing dictatorship and tearing down capitalism according to their political doctrine. This competition is good for us, and we as a nation will suffer for the lack of it.

Yet there will be little competition in national elections as long as we are at war, and the Democrats are unserious about national security. The Democrats had a chance to figure this out in 2002, but instead chose to go with the fantasy ideology of believing that they weren't pure enough on the Left, and immediately elevated Nancy Pelosi to control of the Democrats in the House. This was a sure signal, and it was followed by the appearance of Dean and Kucinich and Kerry as contenders in the presidential nomination process. The Democrats will have another chance to figure this out after their forthcoming humiliation in 2004. I really hope that such a beating is sufficient to get the Democrats to change direction, because if they don't we could all be "dead and damned" - not just the Democrats.

Nobody Outcrazies Kucinich

Bob Graham is really trying, but nobody outcrazies Kucinich:

He called for cutting the Pentagon's budget by $60 billion to pay for universal pre-kindergarten and canceling President Bush's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in favor of universal college education. Kucinich said universal health care can be achieved with a system administered by the federal government.

Does anyone besides me remember the Saturday Night Live sketch "What were you Thinking?" All we have to do is change a few lines, make it Kucinich instead of Mondale, and we're done. It'd be worth seeing Kucinich nominated just for that skit.

Peace, Love and Understanding

There is a discussion going on at Winds of War, as to whether or not the President should lay out the strategies he is pursuing in the war on terror. Sadly, this is starting to degenerate into a culture clash. I hope I can clear the air a little:

Trent, you are being overwrought. It is true that the President cannot lay out our strategy (as opposed to doctrine, which he has done here). It is equally true that many Leftists want the President to lay out his intentions so that they can attack those intentions for partisan gain. It is also true that A.L., Michael Totten and the like are confronting the Leftists, and you do them a disservice (and drive them more towards the Leftists) by talking like Ann Coulter. The disloyal opposition (yes, there is one) is a very small part of the Democratic party, and is confined almost exclusively to their activists and a few of their political leaders. Some subtlety would be helpful.

A.L., you are missing a major point: the President can lay out his doctrine, and has done so here. He cannot lay out the strategies in play right now, for reasons Steven Den Beste tackles here. To lay out the strategy would be to either doom it, or at least to make it more difficult and costly to achieve. I would like for the other aspirants to lay out their doctrines, but as far as I can tell, only the Libertarians have done so (and I cannot accept disengagement and isolationism).

Gabriel, you too are missing a point: those people who are willing to let America take damage if, in the process, it damages the Republicans to their own gain, are disloyal opposition, and some of them might be traitors. (For example, people like Rachel Corrie and the rest of the ISM crowd actively aid and abet the terrorists.) It is reasonable for Trent to point this out, and it shouldn't take all of the air out of the conversation when he does so (though he tends to be a bit strident rhetorically). Most of the people in this vein are on the Democratic side of the ledger, and reasonable Liberals need to call them out, and distance themselves from the radicals. Some of the people in this vein are on the radical Right, and resonable Conservatives need to call them out, and distance themselves from the radicals.

It would be tragic if the centrists fought amongst themselves because of the positioning of an arbitrary line, and in the process let the radicals take control of the agenda. Debate is crucial, but it needs to be civil in order to be useful. This debate hasn't spiralled out of control, but I'm worried that it will as the political battles unfold over the next year.

Schism

Michael Totten warns the Democrats that classical liberals are leaving the party, due to its stance on national security. There were only two great inflection points in American politics in the 20th century. We are in the middle of another one - the first of the 21st century.

The first truly great shock was the victory of the progressives in the 1930s. Since the 1890s at least, the progressives had been attempting to push the US from being an isolationist republic with a minimal government, mostly accountable to the voters indirectly (the Representative being the only directly-elected office), into an internationalist republic with a comprehensive government, more powerful but more directly accountable to the voters. The Great Depression brought about a realigning election, putting the Democrats solidly in power, at the same time as the country was wallowing in a deep economic crisis. The combination, and a pliant Supreme Court, allowed FDR to push through reforms that effectively gutted the Constitutional limitations on government, and brought about the governmental norms in place today.

The second political shock was the 1960s cultural upheaval. During this time, the Republicans effectively silenced the moderate New England patricians - the Rockefeller Republicans - and replaced them in control of the party with the populist and more conservative Goldwater Republicans. This culminated in the Reagan administration, and had the effect of drawing a sharp boundary between the Democrats and the Republicans, who until that time were more alike than different. This period saw the self-destructive impulses of the Democrats over Viet Nam and McGovern which would likely have resulted in a realignment back to the Republicans, were it not for Watergate. Instead, it was Reagan in 1980, after the failure of the Carter presidency, who made visible the nation's dramatic shift rightwards. Still, there was no realignment, though the parties approached sufficient equality that by the 1990s, the Republicans were able (for the first time in 40+ years) to hold both the House and the Senate.

This shift rightwards was actually stopped by the end of the Cold War. With the apparent threat gone, Americans wanted to turn back to domestic issues, and Americans have seen the Democrats as being most capable of managing the domestic agenda since at least 1932. With the election of Bill Clinton, the US had its first caretaker president since WWI. This combination of circumstances left the US in a 50-50 split, with half of the electorate being concerned with a basket of issues that led them to vote Democrat, and half being concerned with an overlapping, but not identical, basket of issues that led them to vote Republican.

George Bush would most likely have been a caretaker president, had it not been for September 11. That horrible event plunged the US into war, and the parties took two distinctly different approaches to the challenge we face.

The question for America now is, do we conclude that we've won the war, and go back to the status quo ante, except that Afghanistan and Iraq are domestically changed, treating terrorism like a law enforcement issue and focusing our efforts on attempting to create an American version of the European statist model; or do we view terrorism as an existential threat, to be fought for decades (as was the Cold War) both directly and via proxy, to eliminate not just terrorism and state sponsors of terrorism, but also weapons of mass destruction from the hands of non-democratic states, focusing our effort on creating America-lite in the failed nations of the world?

If we conclude that we have won the war on terror, and now need to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, then Americans will elect a Democrat to the Presidency, and retract our military greatly. We will intervene abroad on the Clinton model: only where the only possible goal is humanitarian, and there are no direct gains for America in doing so. We will obsess over health care, business regulation, expanding the scope of entitlements, and merging ever closer to the European-derived "civilized international norms."

If we instead conclude that the terrorist threat is existential, and we are willing to take decades to wipe it out, in the process raising up failed states into free, self-governing and non-threatening republics, then Americans will elect a Republican to the Presidency, and expand our military greatly. We will intervene abroad where failed states exist, solely to reform those states into viable entities, if necessary redrawing borders in the process (particularly in Africa). We will ignore the UN, and possibly even withdraw from it. Our international relations will de-emphasize the socialist-leaning European states, such as France and Germany, in favor of the eastern European states, the Anglosphere and nations like Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan and Israel. We will work tirelessly to bring Liberty and self-determination to the 3rd world, and in the end we will be engaged in this for a generation.

I think that the inflection point happened between 9/11 and the end of the war in Iraq, and we are now making up our minds. The next election will show us which way the public has decided.

If the public decides to re-elect President Bush, it is most likely true that the Senate and House will swing more Republican, and that the Democratic party will fracture under the strain. I think that the paroxism of the Left will be such that its thrashing will throw off the classical liberals like Armed Liberal and Michael Totten, who didn't move with the "Reagan Democrats" or in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

WARNING: WILD SPECULATION FOLLOWS

The Joe Liebermans and Dick Gephardts of the Democratic party might similarly find themselves out in the cold. Should that happen, I suspect that the Democratic party will split permanently, much like the Whigs did in the 1840s or 1850s. The Left will retain the Democratic party name, while the centrists will form a new party. There would then be a long period of realignment, during which the new part and the Republicans would be shifting members across the lines, with the remainder of the Democratic party consituting about a third of the electorate. It's possible we could stabilize on a three-party state, with two parties (Republicans and new party) fighting the war on terror, while two parties (the Democrats and the new party) determine the domestic agenda. This would put the new party into the kingmaker position, and frankly I wouldn't be unhappy with that.

UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus comments: "I think that it will stabilize at two parties; the outcome will be either an unreformed Democratic Party, a renewed (or remade) one, or a new Party." That may be so. The US has certainly tended towards two-party politics, although a lot of that since the 1890s or so has to do with the kind of regulations adopted by the States (and since Watergate by the Federal government) to make it difficult for third parties to compete fairly. For example, the Democrats and Republicans do not have to get candidates onto the ballot: it's automatic. For third-party candidates, some states (NY is a case in point) are nearly impossible. Campaign finance legislation is similarly weighted to favor large and established parties.

That said, I don't think that there's anything sacred about the two-party system, and a stable three-party arrangement could exist, at least for several election cycles, if it built up from the ground (instead of starting with the Presidency) and had a substantial base to start with. We do not suffer from the parliamentary weakness of requiring a majority coalition at all times. We simply pass bills by majority, and it does not matter where those votes come from. Congress won't fall, nor will the President, on a failure to get the majority party to maintain party discipline. As a result, it is possible for several parties to exist simultaneously in the Congress without causing a crisis. (In fact, I'd bet that we could sustain as many as a half-dozen parties without causing a crisis. After that, there would be a lot of time taken up by partisan dealmaking that would make taking action difficult - that may be a feature.)

What About the Supreme Court, Though?

Robert Prather, at The Mind of Man, has a post on a fantastic-looking bill in the House. The Enumerated Powers Act would force the Congress to state the Constitutional provision that gives Congress the authority to pass such a law. Excellent bill, and should be passed.

Of course, giving the Supreme Court's tendency, since FDR's administration, to Constitutionally forbidden to the Congress are granted to the Congress (the 9th and 10th Amendments and the Federalist Papers' explanations notwithstanding), I don't know that the bill would do much real-world good. But there's always hope.

Health Care

Kevin Drum (not unexpectedly) comes up with the moderate statist case for socialized medicine, and why businesses should support it. While I agree that businesses have a real incentive in the current regulatory/cost climate to shift this to the government, I believe that there is a much better solution.

First, a digression. It was in WWII that we started, as a nation, subsidizing health insurance. We did this by providing businesses with a tax credit for the money they spent on employee health care. The reason businesses asked for this was that it would allow them to compete better for the scarce worker pool, given that some 28 million young men and women (obviously, mostly men) were under arms, by offering better benefits in lieu of better pay. They were having a hard time offering better pay because the businesses mostly were government contractors and didn't want to raise the price of war goods to the government during wartime. Of course, the reality of this program was to give large subsidies to large companies, which allowed them to outcompete smaller companies, who didn't have a large enough worker pool to get preferred insurance rates, and thus could not compete on a level field with the large companies. (This was not a bug; it was the central point of the program.) Other large companies, of course, had large numbers of workers and thus were able to compete on level terms.

Of course, once such a program is enacted, it takes a national near-catastrophe to undo it, and so this method of paying for health insurance has persisted into the present day. Assuming that it is in the interest of the Federal government to ensure a healthy population (arguable, but I can accept it under some conditions, and certainly on utilitarian grounds), the current system is nearly the worst way to provide it. The only worse way I can think of is socializing the entire system.

Socializing the entire system would be a disaster, because the central point of government-controlled medicine is its scarcity. There is a reason why we get patients in droves from Canada, and in lesser numbers from all over the world: sufficient funding from private sources allows us to provide the best possible healthcare in extreme cases, exceptional healthcare across a broad spectrum of cases, and some health care even to the poorest. (Despite numerous horrifying anecdotes, promulgated third-hand every time the proponents of single-payer care try to impose it on the rest of us, I've yet to see a confirmed story of someone being turned away from at least emergency-room care when they are in need.) Adequate preventive care appears to be available in every population center of note, should people wish to take advantage of it. (Most cities, for example, run hospitals which are compelled to take patients regardless of ability to pay. Also, there are free clinics for many common problems among the poor. The countryside, of course, tends to have fewer such resources.) I personally don't want the government to bring the compassion of the DMV and the financial management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to focus on giving me health care.

Having companies fund the health care for their workers makes more sense than socialized medicine, but has numerous and large flaws. For example, if you work for a large company, you generally have affordable benefits which work well for you. If you work for a small- to mid-sized company, you have expensive benefits with much less flexibility and coverage. In both cases, you have virtually no real choice in your health plans, as each provider meets basically the same coverage requirements at basically the same costs. If you are out of work, or work for a very small company, or work for a company with high turnover (such as fast food or retail stores), you likely don't get any health insurance coverage until you are a manager. In addition, the costs in meeting these needs for their employees and the costs of regulation imposed by the government and the costs of paperwork imposed on the employees to meet all of those regulatory burdens (and the fiscal burdens and audit requirements of the employer) conspire to make the entire system dreadfully inefficient and a pain in the ass to deal with.

No government involvement in health care, other than perhaps to run free hospitals and clinics for those who need them, might work - it has worked in the past for us - but I suspect that (with current medical care depending on expensive people, equipment, facilities and drugs) such a lack of involvement would result in a brittle system, with good care available to the rich, and virtually nothing available to anyone not in the middle class or higher. Also, this would almost certainly be politically impossible in a country which accepts the proposition that it's OK for government to be involved in virtually everything.

A better system would be to do away entirely with business tax credits for subsidizing employee health insurance, and the provision for allowing a deduction for large health expenses not covered by insurance (I think anything under 15% of your salary is not covered by the current individual deduction), and replace both of them with a direct credit to individuals for all health care costs. In other words, any money I spend on health insurance, medicines or whatever would be credited to me on my taxes. This would allow each employee to spend as much or as little as they choose in order to get coverage tailored to them, and would allow for a far more efficient system in general (for one thing, too much paperwork and I take my business elsewhere).

That system could be improved on in order to fix some of the flaws. The individual tax credit amount would not emphasize good insurance, or cost cutting by the individual, with a straight credit. After all, why not get the absolute best when you're not paying for it at all. This could be fixed by having smaller percentages credited as the costs increase, which would tend to make insurance a better bet for anything other than relatively small amounts (say, under a few thousand dollars), while making insurance affordable by not driving people to use insurance to pay for every single visit to the doctor's office for routine care. The problem of some people being unable to get insurance (because, for example, they have really bad health problems or because they are destitute) could be solved by retaining Medicare/Medicaid and applying them only to the uninsurable (which should, as a side benefit, reduce the costs of those programs).

There are other problems, of course, in any system so large an complex. However, if you accept the premise that the Federal government has an interest in ensuring a healthy population, then I believe that individual tax credits are a far better way to achieve that than corporate tax credits or socialized care.

What She Said

I agree with everything Megan said here.

UPDATE: Gak! Not looking at the bylines closely enough on a group blog (even a group of two) can cause one - well, me in this case - to misattribute authorship. I meant to say, "I agree with everything Mindles said here." Mea culpa maxima.

The Foundations of Free Societies

Tarek Heggy, guest blogging at Winds of Change, discusses how the ballot box is not the most important component of democracy; rather, the institutions underlying a free society are necessary for representative government to succeed. This is something I've written about before in regards to Iraq, and it is a pet peeve of mine when people trumpet elections as being the sum total of freedom.

Heggy lists the following conditions as reforms necessary to create a free society:

• Laying down the policies and creating the mechanisms and organizations required for the conduct of democratic political action in an institutionalized fashion.
  
• Creating the ideal framework for the growth of civil society institutions, which are the first line of defense against fascist forces that claim to be the holders of absolute truth.
  
• Proceeding on the path of economic reform while never wavering from the ultimate objective of reducing the role of the State in economic life from a patriarchal role to a less intrusive role, albeit one that is decisive when it comes to laying down economic policies and guaranteeing their observance.
  
• Reforming educational institutions, which have sunk to abysmal standards in most countries today, producing graduates who are totally unfit to cope with the challenges of contemporary life. Our educational institutions are among the worst, and the only voices raised in their defense belong to those who contributed to their decline.
  
• Reforming media institutions which, in much of the Third World, continue to apply Goebbels' understanding of their role as propaganda machines serving the government, and turning them into institutions which set themselves the contemporary goal of serving the consumer.

I'd like to restate these prerequisites/reforms, and maybe add a few, as follows:

• Recognized and protected private property rights - the ability of anyone to obtain, have and use real property, and to sell or give that property without restriction; the ability to defend that property from attempts to take it by force.
  
• Free economy - the ability to form businesses, employ and terminate the employment of workers, and keep the profits (if any) of those businesses; to loan and be loaned money or other resources (including rights to property owned by another); to work for onesself or for another, at whatever trade or profession one desires. This cannot exist without recognized and protected private property rights, and is an inevitable outgrowth of those rights. (If a free economy doesn't exist, you cannot sell your property freely, for example.)
  
• Personal security - being free of the threat of sudden death, loss of property, or loss of liberty (whether from government, or from individuals or organizations) without yourself acting to trigger such a threat (by, for example, trying to rob someone). This includes the ability to defend one's security by force of arms.
  
• Personal liberty - the ability to do what one wishes, so long as it does not interfere with the property, life or liberty of someone else. This includes the freedoms of speech and religion, as well as the freedom to defend one's liberty by force of arms.
  

In other words, we are back to Adam Smith's "life, liberty and property" as the underpinnings of a free society. Representative government cannot long exist without these underpinnings. These underpinnings cannot be maintained without the ability to defend them from threats - whether by a constabulary, a militia or individual action.

Then, after these prerequisites are established, is the time to have national elections. (Local elections would almost certainly come about during the establishment of the prerequisites, as a way of settling purely local disputes.) It is this that we need to undertake in Iraq - and that fortunately we seem to be undertaking in Iraq. It is this process that needs to be undertaken - quickly or slowly - in any society that wants to be free.

These are not, of course, guaratees of a long-maintained free society. Such a society must have certain characteristics of government (including respect for and observance of the rule of law, regular and regulated entry to and leaving from office, separation of powers within any given layer of government past the county level, franchise limited to those who have an interest in the future of the state, apportionment of power and responsibility to distinct interest groups (doesn't necessarily need to be regional, as the United States is), and decreasing power with increasing scope (so that the local government - the easiest to escape - would have the most power over individuals, while the national government - the most difficult to escape - would have virtually no power over individuals.) However, without the pre-requisites, the form of government is meaningless, because it will not last past the first strongman with determination and followers.

Politics and Policy

The easiest way to tell when Kevin Drum's argument lacks substance is to look at what he presents to back it up. When he's got something plausible, even if its arguable or wrong, he presents statistics, or argues from history. When he's way off base, he just asserts:

I don't expect Gabler's argument [that for Bush "politics seem less a means to policy than policy is a means to politics"] to mean anything to Bush supporters, of course, but I've felt this way about Bush almost from the beginning. He's a furious political animal who is uninterested in compromise and whose main goal is to defeat his enemies, not advance a cause. Ideology is actually secondary, and is useful mainly as a way to batter his political opposites.

Actually, that criticism is better levelled at the Clinton, Johnson or Nixon administrations, all of which used policy as a weapon. For Bush, it's true that he has a very muted ideology, and so his policies are more political than idealistic. But it's not true that his policies are shaped as a political weapon. Rather, President Bush sets out major policy goals so as to leave the system in a better state than when he started.

When Bush was first elected Governor, I voted for Ann Richards (who I still maintain was an excellent Governor, and who I am very glad never got into national office). Soon after his election, Governor Bush was asked by a reporter what his goals were. He listed five policy goals which he felt would correct real problems in Texas. The reporter asked Bush what he would do after that. Bush's answer was "Make sure those five get passed." Bush has always had that kind of focus (where always is defined as "at least since he ran for Governor"). Generally, he seems to pick a few policies which he really wants to get put through, and then bend every effort to getting them passed.

In that sense, I suppose you could say Bush uses policy as a weapon, since he will compromise on any issue that he doesn't consider core in order to get his core policies through, but that's a really weak statement in comparison to the argument Kevin is trying to make. In particular, I think that President Bush used a very measured approach, at first, in trying to convince people to support the war effort. Once it was clear that certain groups (the Robert Byrd-led group of Democratic demagogues and the Axis of Weasels, for example) were not going to support Bush no matter what, and that other groups (moderate to conservative Republicans, a few Democrats like Zell Miller, the British and Australians) were going to support Bush, all of Bush's efforts went into protecting those who would support him and sidelining or minimizing those who would oppose him, all so that the President could win the assent of the undecided voters and countries.

I do think that 2004 will be nasty, and certainly some of that will come from conservative groups. If the history of US politics since about 1984 is any guide, though, most of the worst offenses will come from left-wing groups and fringe Democratic candidates, along with a few ultra-rightists like Pat Buchanan.

Failure of Logic

Are the "opponents of tax cuts" then suggesting that if my taxes are reduced to $5 per year, but that $5 represents 100% of the Federal income tax take, then I should be upset about the effect of the tax cuts? What an odd argument.

Dividends

Mark at Sha Ka Ree has some good points about the tax cuts. I think that there is something else, though, that needs to be pointed out: a company pays dividends out of cash on hand. As a result, Enron could not have happened to a company paying dividends. If your bank account doesn't have the money, the checks don't clear. If you are not paying dividends, though, and need the stock value to go up to keep investors happy, you tend to think very short term, and the incentive is to oversell the company's viability. Enron and Worldcom have a lot to do with tax law changes made a decade or more before these scandals.

I don't think that people really invest much in companies any more. Instead, they largely put money into 401Ks and other accounts that insulate them from the companies they invest in. People aren't really taking a risk on individual companies, but instead on the skills of fund managers and on general economic trends. This means that people don't get the benefits of investing well, although they are actually risking a large amount of their money. Of course, they also don't run as large of a risk of losing everything, so maybe that's a good thing.

Liberal?

Radley Balko has a fine article on the FoxNews website, wherein he talks about the original meaning of the word "liberal."

I think that he has a point, but the only way "liberal" will ever reacquire its meaning in the US is for a party representative of classically liberal values to organize itself as the Liberal Party. Otherwise, liberal will basically just be another word for leftist.

Moderate-but-Inconsistent

Patrick Belton at OxBlog postulates that American policies (he mentions foreign policy, but I suspect that this applies just as strongly to domestic policies) come out the way they do largely because American voters, while somewhat ignorant as a whole of policy details, have a very strong and constant set of values. By voting on their values, Belton maintains, the policies of American administrations "a rather moderate-but-inconsistent course that frustrates ideologues on both sides of the partisan divide." It's a very interesting article, well worth reading.

Making America a Better Place

John Hawkins asks, "Theoretically, let's say you could get any five pieces of legislation passed that you wanted. These could either bills that are already in the pipeline in Congress or that you could write yourself. What pieces of legislation would you pass?" I'd like to comment on some of his answers, and add a few of my own.

Abortion - This doesn't make sense to me. If you want to do this, it's better to take a generalist approach, it seems, and declare that the Congress may set a single condition to determine when life begins, a single condition to determine when one becomes an adult, and a single condition to determine when life ends. Until and unless Congress acted otherwise, these conditions would be: life begins at the point that 50% of babies would, if delivered, survive for at least 6 months; adulthood begins at age 18; death occurs when a person is unable to survive without the assistance of a machine, and has been for at least 10 days unable to declare himself alive. Any act of government would be prohibited from making age/life condition distinctions other than that a person is alive, but not an adult; is a live adult; or is dead. This would both maximize the protection of lives (including unborn children killed when the mother is mugged, for example) and minimize the intrusion of government into medical care.

Balanced Budget - OK, as long as it includes the phrase "except in time of war" - this might require additional amendments to clarify war powers, such that "war" could not continue indefinitely.

Confirmation - I would again prefer to be generalist about this: The consent of the Senate, where required under this Constitution, shall be deemed to be given unless, the Senate having been in session for less than twenty days since the requirement for consent arose, the Senate affirmatively acts to withdraw such consent.

Flat Tax - If we're going to have direct taxes, a flat tax with a large deduction per person is the best way to do it. I'd rather eliminate direct taxes, though. If a Convention - because, let's face it, that's what it would take to do this - determined that insufficient revenues could be raised under these terms, it could allow the Federal government to tax the States and Territories, and allow the States and Territories to tax their residents.

Race and Gender - Glenn Reynolds' proposal doesn't go far enough. No act of government, nor of any entity recieving government funds, should be allowed to consider race or gender.

Illegal Aliens - I would only support tougher enforcement of immigration rules if the rules were much more open and much less arbitrary. In fact, I would prefer that it take an act of a judge to prevent a person from entering the country, except in certain well-defined circumstances (such as they are engaging in illegal activity, like smuggling, while in the act of entry). We have always been open to immigrants, and I see no reason to stop now. Of course, we might want to, as a parallel policy, start offering statehood to nations and provinces of nations. The money we would expend, for example, fixing Mexico's problems would pale in comparison to the good we would obtain from spending less on enforcement and incorporating Mexicans into our society and workforce. That act alone would dramatically reshape the immigration debate.

School Vouchers - Nope, bad approach. If we are talking wishes here, let's just prevent the government from enforcing a government monopoly on education. Let any child be educated in any way that their parents desire. The school taxes will be apportioned so that the amount necessary for the maintenance of a public school infrastructure would be granted to the government monopoly school district, while the rest of the money (which now goes to supplies, salaries and so on) would be divided among the parents of school-age children - as vouchers if you prefer - which can be used for educational materials and supplies or for tuition. Government schools would be required to take a student on in exchange for the full allotment granted to the parents for that child. Private schools could charge more, or less. Homeschoolers could spend the money on supplies, curricula, books and media or what have you.

Term Limits - It would be better, again, to be generalist and to define instead what constitutes a Congressional district. Make each State legislature define the districts such that there is a minimum total boundary between districts, and they follow where possible established physical (roads or rivers) or political (county lines or city limits) boundaries, and the districts vary by no more than 2% of population from each other. A redistricting plan could only be challenged in court by someone who could prove that a plan exists which follows existing boundaries and has a smaller total boundary length or a more-even distribution of population.

Tort Reform - no arguments there

Other changes I'd like to see implemented:

Transfer payments - Congress shall make no law which disburses money from the Treasury other than for goods received or services rendered.

Monopolies - The government should not be allowed to maintain to themselves, nor grant to others, any monopoly power, except for copyrights and patents.

Intellectual Property - No grant of copyright or patent should be allowed to exceed 25 years under any circumstance.

Direct Election of Senators - Scrap this, and give the States power over their own destinies again. The States should choose their Senators; otherwise it's just a less responsive House of Representatives.

Gun Ownership - The government should be required to train each member of the unorganized militia, at that person's request, in the use of small arms, and should provide a rifle for each such person. (Note that the unorganized militia is basically the body of all adult citizens, excluding felons and certain other classes of people.) The government should not be in any way able to prevent, limit or otherwise infringe on the rights of individual citizens to own any weapon (other than nuclear, chemical or biological weapons) that they are capable of operating safely and responsibly.

There are probably more, but those are the big ones. Personally, I wouldn't have the Constitution say anything about abortion, or include the balanced budget requirement. Even so, any of these proposals would make this a more free and just society.

TX Democrats in a Snit

I don't usually write about State politics, but this is really funny. Basically, what it comes down to is this:

1. Democrats have historically had the upper hand in Texas politics, but this has been changing as the State becomes more right-wing and the Democrats nationally become more leftist.
   
2. Democrats have used this upper-hand to form voting districts that will enshrine their upper-hand.
   
3. It's time for redistricting to happen.
   
4. The Republicans are in control of the redistricting process.
   
5. The Republican plan will break the Democrats' hold, transferring some 4 to 7 seats to the Republicans.
   
6. The Democrats are in a snit.
   
7. The Democrats left the State, rather than allow a quorum to form that would vote on redistricting, and pass the Republican plan.
   
8. Please note that this has been through court several times already.
   

I don't know why, but I find this really amusing.

Taxation

Kevin Drum at Calpundit has an article about taxation which is worth reading. He also references Henry Waxman's excellent example of how to lie with statistics. I'm not going to discuss the chart in detail, though, because I want to focus on why taxation exists, where revenue can come from, and what our tax options are. I hope thereby to clear up some of the confusion both in Mr. Drum's post and in his comments. In particular, I want to show why those whose views differ from Mr. Drum and his commenters have not "completely run out of ideas on economic policy," do not "istakenly think they are among the top 1%," and are not necessarily "hypocritical, deceitful scum."

As a matter of first principles, the absolute requirements of the Federal government are to:

• conduct a census (necessary for many aspects of representative government, Art 1, Sec 2)
  
• regulate the structure of government, and ensure the good behavior of government officers (Art 1, Secs 2, 3, 5 and 6)
  
• regulate Federal elections (Art 1, Secs 4 and 5; and Art 2, Sec 1; and several amendments)
  
• enact laws as needed to carry out the powers of the Federal government (Art 1, Sec 7)
  
• pay debts incurred by the United States (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• provide for the common defence and general welfare (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• regulate naturalization (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• provide uniform laws in specific cases, such as bankruptcy (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• coin money, regulate the exchange rates of the currency, and standardize weights and measures (this was done to ensure that trade would be transparent and fair, Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• provide for communications between various parts of the country (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• provide intellectual property protections (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• enforce the laws (Art 1, Sec 8)
  
• raise and regulate the Federal military and regulate the various milias (Art 1, Sec 8)
  

To undertake these functions, and other functions which some may prefer to be done by the Federal government, but are not absolutely necessary (for example, unearned entitlement programs), the Congress must raise revenue, which Article 1, Section 8 entitles them to do. The methods by which the government might raise revenue include taxation of the states; duties, imposts and excises; user fees; sale of goods and services; taxation of organizations; or direct taxation (that is to say, the taxation of individuals).

The Federal government uses all of these sources of revenue except, I believe, for taxation of the states. I have no doubt that good arguments can be made for and against each of these sources of revenue, on the basis of the amount of revenue raised, the fairness of the method, the intrusiveness of the method, and other factors. I'd like to specifically talk about direct taxation of individuals, since that is what is at issue in Mr. Drum's post.

The one argument which is undeniably in favor of using direct taxation of individuals is that it raises a lot of money. The arguments against it - especially in its present form - are legion. The basic categories of arguments that I would make (I'm sure there are others out there) against the current income tax code are: it is intrusive, it is unfair, it is excessive, it is too complex, and it is uncontrollable.

Intrusiveness: The current Federal tax code intrudes into many aspects of private individual behavior. Because of the number of exceptions, exemptions and provisions, the Federal government needs to know a huge amount of detail about your family structure, your health care, your provisions for retirement, your will, your inheritance from others, your investments, where and how you spend money, your business and personal undertakings overseas, your cars, your house, your travel plans and on and on and on. And every single bit of information that the government knows about you is a method (and sometimes a reason) for intervening in your life and influencing or regulating or even prohibiting your choices.

Fairness: This is probably the biggest area of disagreement between supporters and opponents of the current tax system. The entire idea of progressive taxation grates on me. The argument advanced in favor of progressive taxation is that it is "more fair" because "the rich can afford to pay more." I don't buy it. I'm pretty solidly middle class, my brother is poor and I have friends who are quite wealthy - on the low end of actually being rich. Should I, on going to a store to buy bread, pay $1.25 for it, while my brother pays $0.20 and my friend pays $7.00? If you support progressive taxation, how could you disagree with this? After all, it gives a break to my poor brother, while my rich friend and I can afford to subsidize my brother's purchase. (By the way, if you think that this is not going to happen, you haven't been keeping up with corporate experimentation in online "smart pricing" arrangements.)

Obviously, in order to charge this kind of pricing, the corporation would have to be rather intrusive, not unlike the government, into my personal business. But I'm not trying to make the intrusiveness argument here, and I fail in any case to see why it's worse for a company to know my income than it is for the government, since I can choose to take my business elsewhere.

So from a fairness standpoint, I don't see a difference between the two practices. They are both massively unfair. My ability to pay for a thing should not be the determinant of the price of that thing. My ability to pay the government should not be the determinant of what I pay the government.

Excessive: I pay a significant fraction of my income in taxes. This is money that I would otherwise use to get out of debt, buy things my family needs or wants (anyone who wants to donate a storm shelter, email me, 'kay?), educate my children (we homeschool, so we don't benefit from the property taxes we pay, either, at least to the very large extent that such taxes finance the local public schools), save for my retirement, save to start a company of my own, and so on. In fact, if my taxes were cut in half, I'd end up being out of debt in one fourth the time - literally - that it will take me as is, assuming I only put half of the new money into debt repayment.

Now the Federal government does a lot of things I would rather that they not do. Some of these things I think are blatantly unconstitutional, while others are just not the proper role of Federal government. However, I would not argue that taxpayers have the right to withhold their money from programs they don't like. I note, though, that these programs consume some 50% of the Federal budget, and that share is growing. You can make the argument that the government has to do more, and thus needs more revenue, and thus needs higher income taxes (since that's how revenue can be generated in the largest amounts); but I would counter with the argument that I cannot see anything in my list of least-liked programs whose elimination would make this country a worse place to live. Indeed, the country would be a freer place.

Complex: I have a pretty simple tax return. I don't own a farm, or my own business, or engage in sophisticated financial deals. I don't have complex and involved medical care; my medical care is straightforward; and my real estate holdings are limited to my primary residence. Nonetheless, it takes me about six hours to do my taxes each year, with the aid of a computer program designed for the purpose, and I am never sure that I've done them correctly. In fact, I am pretty timid about which deductions I claim, even if I appear to be entitled to them, because I don't want to trigger an audit and have to defend every single thing I put down, with the presumption of the law being that I am a tax cheat until I can conclusively disprove to the most ardent sceptic that I wasn't trying to cheat the government out of the 8 cents credit I got on books donated to the library. Not that I'm bitter.

Uncontrollable: Every form of taxation except direct taxation has a limit to its effectiveness, and almost all are totally avoidable, given a desire to do so. For example, let's say the government taxes the sale of food. I can choose less expensive food, to lessen the tax, or even to grow my own food and eliminate the tax entirely. But what is to limit the Federal government's take of tax on individual incomes? The only way to avoid this taxation, since everyone has to earn a living, is to leave the country or vote out the entire Congress en masse. Given the way that disctricts are draw, you'd be advised to leave the country. Worse still, since the government doesn't allow you to write a check every quarter if you are working for a corporation, you don't see the tax bite very well. It's hidden. This of course reduces the resistance to income taxes, which reduces the chance to change them.

On top of that, the income tax is heavily concentrated on higher income earners; so much so that about 50% of the people pay no income tax (note: I am not referring to Social Security/Medicare, which are theoretically earned entitlements - just the income tax portion). Well, if half the people are not affected by raising the tax rates, then it is not unreasonable to expect that " the hoi polloi in America are so undertaxed that they can vote themselves just about anything, knowing that it won't cost them a dime." Except that the dynamic isn't about what people will vote for, but what they will not vote against. Suppose a politician is contemplating a tax increase that will win him X votes in people affected by the spending that tax increase enables, and lose him Y votes from people paying heavier taxes. As long as X is larger than Y, the politician's incentive is to vote for the increase. Given that half the people are basically in the X category as it is, the increase in taxes has to actually start reaching down into that bottom half - rather than just soaking the upper half further - to really increase Y. On the other hand, massively increasing the taxes on the top few percent of income earners likely increases Y not at all, while massively increasing X. All in all, the politician's incentive is to soak the rich. Of course, "rich" gets defined further downwards all the time.

So, while I agree that it is necessary for the Federal government to raise revenue, our current system is the worst possible way to do so. At the very least, we should shift taxation from individuals to the States, where the taxation of any given State is proportional to its relative GDP. Those States could then decide how to meet that revenue need - to what degree to tax their citizens, use other methods, reduce spending themselves and so forth. On top of this, the States have the power to limit the Federal government's take, by threatening to call a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to define that take. And if you end up not liking your State's choice, you could move to a more amenable State. This shifts the incentives pretty nicely.

There are other schemes that would be even better, in my opinion, but frankly the more attractive they are, the less likely they are to get passed.

I suspect that most people could agree that the government needs revenue. Strict Libertarians would likely not agree that a direct tax is a reasonable way to raise revenue. Small 'l' libertarians would likely agree that direct taxes would be OK, as long as they were fair and not terribly intrusive (for example, a flat tax which has a high individual exemption) would be reasonable. Very conservative people would argue that spending needs to be cut dramatically as programs are shifted back to the States or eliminated entirely. Somewhat conservative people would argue that spending should be cut somewhat as programs are made more efficient, or combined, or eliminated if they are not working. Somewhat liberal folks would likely demand that spending cuts not happen on programs which "benefit the people," while defense spending and corporate tax abatements (which presumably in that logic do not benefit people) should be slashed, and many small exceptions should be created as needed for "fairness," "justice," or "compassion". Strongly lefty types generally seem to argue that taxes should be raised and concentrated on fewer people, with as much effort as possible spent to ensure that all people end up with the same material outcome regardless of their input.

I fall in the small 'l' libertarian and mildly conservative bands.

Don't Senators READ the Constitution?

Newsday reports (hat tip: the Volokh Conspiracy) that the Republicans in the Senate, tiring of the Democratic filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees, are considering either taking the issue to court, or rewriting the rules so that 60 votes are not needed to end a filibuster.

I am just stunned that the Senators are even considering taking this issue to the courts. Shouldn't it be a requirement for office that the Senators have at least read the parts of the Constitution that define the powers of the Senate? The courts cannot have any say in the rules of the Senate, because the Constitution reserves to each chamber of Congress the power to set its own rules. This is cut and dried, and if they try this, the justices should not grant certiori.

Now, changing the rules within the Senate is just fine. The idea behind having 60 votes to end debate is that it would prevent a slim majority from voting on bills as soon as they were proposed, so as to keep the opposition from attempting to convince anyone to change their vote. However, the Senators of both parties have abused this to the point that it has become a way of making any controversial decision require a supermajority. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily bad, as long as the Senators are acting like Senators instead of party hacks, but sadly they more often act like party hacks. In any case, it is within both reason and the Constitution for the Senate to change its rules in such a way that the filibusters won't be sustainable.

In the longer term, I think that it would be wise for the States to change the Constitution so that, when "advise and consent" is called for, the Congress is assumed to have consented unless it votes to withdraw its consent within some reasonable time. Actually, if this were the rationale for the States to call for a Convention, I think that the Congress would pass an Amendment fairly quickly, in order to forestall a full Convention. I doubt that any of the Representatives or Senators want a Convention called. Just think of the threat it would represent to their sinicure...

The Individual, Society and the State

While researching for this post, I came across this article, which is an excellent discussion of the individual, the state, and the nature of authority and its relationship to Liberty. Some money quotes:

The State, every government whatever its form, character or color - be it absolute or constitutional, monarchy or republic, Fascist, Nazi or Bolshevik - is by its very nature conservative, static, intolerant of change and opposed to it. Whatever changes it undergoes are always the result of pressure exerted upon it, pressure strong enough to compel the ruling powers to submit peaceably or otherwise, generally "otherwise" - that is, by revolution. Moreover, the inherent conservatism of govemment, of authority of any kind, unavoidably becomes reactionary. For two reasons: first, because it is in the nature of government not only to retain the power it has, but also to strengthen, widen and perpetuate it, nationally as well as internationally. The stronger authority grows, the greater the State and its power, the less it can tolelate a similar authority or political power along side of itself. The psychology of govemment demands that its influence and prestige constantly grow, at home and abroad, and it exploits every opportunity to increase it. This tendency is motivated by the financial and commercial interests back of the government, represented and served by it.

...

Our political and social scheme cannot afford to tolerate the individual and his constant quest for innovation. In "self-defense" the State therefore suppresses, persecutes, punishes and even deprives the individual of life. It is aided in this by every institution that stands for the preservation of the existing order. It resorts to every form of violence and force, and its efforts are supported by the "moral indignation" of the majority against the heretic, the social dissenter and the political rebel - the majority for centuries drilled in State worship, trained in discipline and obedience and subdued by the awe of authority in the home, the school, the church and the press.

...

The "genius of man," which is but another name for personality and individuality, bores its way through all the caverns of dogma, through the thick walls of tradition and custom, defying all taboos, setting authority at naught, facing contumely and the scaffold - ultimately to be blessed as prophet and martyr by succeeding generations. But for the "genuis of man," that inherent, persistent quality of individuality, we would be still roaming the primeval forests.

...

Man's true liberation, individual and collective, lies in his emancipation from authority and from the belief in it. All human evolution has been a struggle in that direction and for that object. It is not invention and mechanics which constitute development. The ability to travel at the rate of 100 miles an hour is no evidence of being civilized. True civilization is to be measured by the individual, the unit of all social life; by his individuality and the extent to which it is free to have its being to grow and expand unhindered by invasive and coercive authority.

Socially speaking, the criterion of civilization and culture is the degree of liberty and economic opportunity which the individual enjoys; of social and international unity and co-operation unrestricted by man-made laws and other artificial obstacles; by the absence of privileged castes and by the reality of liberty and human dignity; in short, by the true emancipation of the individual.

While I am no fan of anarchism, which is the apparent preferred ideology of the article's author, there is much wheat among the chaff.

Time to Drop our Old Animosities...

and pick up new ones, more suited to the times. The far left and the far right have joined to defend tyrants and curtail US power. The ACLU has joined with Dick Armey and Orring Hatch to defend civil liberties. The old left/right divide no longer works. "Centrist" and "Extremist" don't really work, and "Idiotarian" doesn't satisfy (used by either side), because these are value judgements that the sides will not agree on. (Both sides have to accept the term for it to be meaningful as a basis of debate.)

Since the key factor in the current political meta-debate is to what extent state sovereignty is absolute vs. predicated on the representative nature of a given country, and since this turns on whether it should be the state or the individual who forms the basic unit of sovereignty, I suggest we use the terms "collectivist" and "individualist".

Collectivists believe, like Noam Chomsky, that the individual exists to serve the state's economic policies, for the moral betterment of society; or believe, like Pat Buchanan, that the state exists to curb the moral imperfections of individuals, for the moral betterment of society. The key is that a collectivist believes that the state exists to contain and channel the individual into a path determined by society (and hence by the state), so as to collectively better all. Brian Carnell observes the same phenomenon, in the context of attitudes towards corporations.

I don't yet have good sources spelling out the collectivist concept of the place of the indidual and the state, or their concept on the role of government. This is mainly because it is dreadful reading through the writings of Marx, Engles, Chomsky, Buchanan, Robertson, et al. When I get them, I will quote them.

Individualists believe that people individually hold and retain all rights, except those voluntarily surrendered to the state or to other organizations. In other words, all organizations are voluntary and have only such power as the people comprising the organization choose to grant to the organization. The state exists for the purpose of achieving what individuals could not achieve, such as mediating disputes, ensuring individual rights against each other and the state itself, and providing domestic security and security from invasion.

The individualist concept of the place of the indidual and the state is based upon:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The individualist concept of the role of government is:

to...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

So unless anyone can come up with better terms, I am going to use "collectivist" and "individualist".

UPDATE (5/12): Michael Totten describes the new divide as "Liberators" and "Destroyers." I have to stick with my original terms, though, good as these are, because the Destroyers would not self-identify that way. Still, you should read his essay.

Cultural Marxism

Porphyrogenitus asks how to defeat Cultural Marxism, the "Long March through the institutions." I wrote a little about that here, but there is another point that needs to be made.

In any evangelistic movement, there are only two ways to end the movement. Either a competing axiom set must arise, which makes a better fit with the needs of the people exposed to it, or the evangelists must be killed. It is in the nature of evangelism to be persistent and coercive. Otherwise, an evangelist is unlikely to convert anyone to his belief system. It is also in the nature of evangelistic movements to be based on logically-shaky foundations, because if the foundations were logically formed, evangelism would be unnecessary; reason would be sufficient to convince people of the utility of the belief system.

As a result, "bad philosophy" is rampant: it is at the heart of every evangelistic movement, and our schools do not teach reason, logic or other Enlightenment values. (This is likely a deliberate tactic, in order to weaken resistence to the next phases of the Marxist agenda.) Interestingly, this lack of teaching of logic and reason does not merely make it more possible for Cultural Marxism to spread, but also for radical right-wing Christian evangelism - the initial benefactor (during the 1980's to mid 1990's) of a lack of ability to evaluate belief systems. (Note: I am not bagging on Christianity per se, merely the political movement based on the Christian equivalent of Sharia.)

We can reduce the influence and slow the spread of "bad philosophy" by resisting it. We homeschool our children, for example, which removes them from a major source of bad philosophy; and we teach them reason and logic so they can defend themselves against bad philosophies. Of course, some people have concerns that we may be abusing our children. The use of language like John Carey displays is the reason why resistance ultimately is futile: there is always a way for water to seep in. It's not, you see, that he dislikes or distrusts home schoolers; it's just that we have to make sure as a society that people aren't abusing children. This will require us, of course, to control every child and watch every parent closely, but we know you're with us in despising people who abuse children. Once a new (lower) plane is reached, the arguments begin to roll back the newly exposed elements of liberty and reason.

So the resistance is necessary, but temporary. In the end; assuming that we don't want to go the route of killing off the Cultural Marxists, Postmodernists, Transnational Progressives and the like; we will have to find an axiom set that is incompatible with the radical Leftist philosophies. Just as Protestantism took the power out of Catholicism, and "Compassionate Conservatism" and neo-conservatism took the wind out of the paleoconservative sails, it will be necessary to find an ideology which will woo the Leftists themselves - not the bulk of the public, which rejects the Leftist idiocy at every turn.

We need an axiom set which will attract the salvagable Leftists, isolating the unreformable radicals. This axiom set needs to be less destructive, in that it needs to limit State intervention to situations which are exceptional and specifically-defined, rather than having State intervention be the norm. The axiom set needs to focus on Justice and Fairness - the key concepts underlying the Leftist agenda - but actually provide for those attributes without becoming tyrannies. Frankly, the Leftist point of view is so far from mine that I cannot see what that axiom set would be. I hope someone can come up with one, though, because it would be a real shame to see mass killings in a few decades. Particularly because it seems to be the radical Leftists who are prone to committing the mass killings, and if that were to happen it would likely be the children of the Enlightenment - such as myself and my family and most of my friends - who would be the ones being killed. Oh, we'd take a few out with us, but it would be nice to just settle this peacefully.

One thing that I think might hold some hope is that world-changing events have been taking place, and more will be coming soon. In particular, the events of 9/11 have made people more resistant to radical ideologies, which will help to slow much of the Leftist agenda, at least over the next few years. In addition, there is some chance that we will finally begin private expansion into space. If Rutan's Space Ship One and projects like it are successful, we might begin the path to the colonization of space. Such an expansive movement will give a place for the idealists and dreamers to go and confront reality, and in the past has been one of the reasons that countries like Britain, the US and Australia - all active in robust frontier exploration - have tended to be both freer and more productive than stagnant societies like the European Continentals.

UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus comments both here and on his blog, and has some good points, so I wanted to address them. The points I want to talk about basically boil down to "been done" and the concept of ex-migration.

Porphyrogenitus notes that classical liberalism started from just this kind of break with the past, by creating new axioms to win away people from an existing movement. That's kind of my point, actually. I perhaps should have scarequoted "Justice" and "Fairness", because the Left does not use the same meanings that someone with, say, a dictionary and a grasp of the English language might use.

The radical Left - and Porphyrogenitus points this out continually and admirably - has a public face which is all about good intentions. They'd like you to please ignore the heat-soaked road off to the left. And the Left is immune to criticism, in the sense that they define every viewpoint and even matters of demonstrable fact as being part of a narrative, which they simply refuse to accept if it does not fit within their theory. Clearly, the theory is correct; therefore reality lacks conviction. Thus, since we cannot criticize the Left on reasonable terms, we must use their cant against them, much like a practitioner of judo throws his opponent using the opponent's own momentum. We must find a way to make their publically-acceptable good intentions lead to actual good deeds. That said, Porphyrogenitus has an excellent point that I need to think about more: "So this would bring us full circle, but with a strong tendency to continue the circle right around without getting us out of the quandry."

On the other point, I don't really see ex-migration as a panacea. I think that tyranny is almost inevitable in human relations; it is a very stable state. It takes much hard work to maintain a free state, in the sense that order is maintained and otherwise individuals are free to act according to their Will. At the heart of this is essential human laziness. Faced with no existential threat, humans just want someone else to take care of the problems and leave them alone. This makes it easy for a free society to degrade quickly into a tyranny.

The Founders in the US got it almost perfectly right. The one mistake that they made (in a Liberty sense - I'm not addressing the issue of slavery here) was to make it too easy to change certain parts of the Constitution. For example, the representation of the States in the Senate is far more crucial to American Liberty (because it acts as a check on a runaway Federal government) than the voting age, yet both are equally easy to modify. When we gave up the States' representation, turning the Senate into a long-serving and less representative House of Representatives, we set up the conditions for the big-government programs we've had since the Depression. I believe that had the Founders split the Constitution into two parts, the essential and the mechanical, and made it easy to change the mechanical aspects and frightfully difficult to change the essential aspects, we would be more resistent to creeping Socialism and other types of bad philosophy.

But even then, there is always the possibility of a moment of fear, when we give up essential Liberty for transient and often illusory safety. As a result, it seems only a few hundred years might pass between the attainment of Liberty and the onset of tyranny. (Other cultures have obtained Liberty in the sense we understand it, but I'm unaware of any who've kept it for more than 500 years.) So ex-migration can keep those who are willing to take risks for Liberty free, but only so long as they keep moving deeper into the frontier. When they stop and settle down, they will almost certainly fall into tyranny within a few hundred years.

As to places on Earth where we could go, I'd pick Alaska. It has rich natural resources, an independent mindset already in place, geography which makes it not much of a threat to anyone, and it borders only Canada. Plus, the population is small enough that an influx of people with a common goal could tip the political balance. That said, though, it's not a very practical idea. We'd still have to deal with the Federal government, and secession is a well-settled issue.

Representation

Steven Den Beste has a post about the European Parliament and the number of members it has. He starts with the US House of Representatives:

The Senate of the US has two members for every state. That's right out of the Constitution. But there's no direct guidance for how big the House should be, except for a ceiling of no more than one Representative for every 30,000 citizens, which would mean about 9300 Representatives.

Obviously we don't have that many, and the reason is that quite a while ago it was recognized that as the chamber became larger it also became more unwieldy, and so the House itself capped its numbers at 435. What if it got larger?

It is certainly true that after a certain point, individual members have almost no real power in such a body. Certainly, there are issues that arise from having a small group of leaders in charge of all of the committee assignments, agenda and so forth. As Steven points out, these issues already arise in the House, at 435 members. I'm not sure, however, that this is really a problem.

The whole purpose of the House of Representatives is to give individual citizens a voice in government. The House's powers include, for example, the requirement that all tax bills originate in the House. The House has the sole power to impeach officers of the government. The primary method for a Representative to influence the law is by his vote. As a practical matter, the direction and agenda of the House is set by the Speaker and his officers. This is true even with the current size of 435 Representatives.

While the individual Representative's power decreases as the number of Representatives increases, the power of the individual citizen increases as the number of Representatives increases. This is because a Representative is representing few people. Texas, where I live, has 21,779,893 residents, according to the 2002 census estimates. Texas has 32 Representatives. That means that my Representative also has 680620 other citizens to represent. What are the odds of my influencing Kay Granger's vote? Now, if there were only 29999 other people competing for attention, I'd have more of an ability to influence that vote, and thus more individual power in government. Indeed, judging by the precinct map, I'd be able to walk to most of the people represented along with me. (I live in the very Northeast corner of the 12th district.)

Beyond having more influence over my Representative, I would have a chance of actually knowing the Elector who represents me. This would put pressure on the State (because I'd want this power, and so would a lot of other voters) to abandon winner-take-all electoral voting and replace it with more local selection of electors. In that case, the Electoral College could actually function the way it was meant to, aggregating the votes of small regions to select people of honor who could interview the Presidential candidates in great detail, and select the best candidate for President. This would act to temper the passions of the moment, and replace them with a longer-term view.

The levels of corruption and vote trading would decline, because it would be much, much harder to influence the House by influencing a few of its members. Alternative parties would be strengthened, because it would be easier for them to actually get people elected. In a district with almost 700000 people, an alternative party has no chance. In a district wtih 30000 people, there is a good chance that someone from a minor party could win an election. This would increase the diversity of the House, which would strengthen the laws by bringing in a more diverse set of viewpoints.

All in all, I'd say that having more Representatives is preferable to having fewer.

Prospects of a Political Axis Shift

Robin Goodfellow a an interesting article about the prospects for a political axis shift in US domestic politics, where the issues being discussed totally change, and the political parties reform into a new pair (possibly with the same names but with vastly different agendas). (Thanks to Instapundit for the link.) I think that there is a good chance that Robin is correct. After all, there are a lot of issues out there that do not break cleanly along party lines (the war on terrorism being only one) and there are a lot of people who don't feel connected to the major parties. When they become convinced they have an alternative, those voters change things. Witness Jesse Ventura's race for governorship, for instance. Robin's suggestion of where the parties might reform is certainly plausible.

What is lacking, I think, is a charismatic leader. If someone like Colin Powell or Zell Miller were to come out and say, hey, we need a third option, and here's what it should be, then I think we could see a rapid formation of a new meaningful political party. It can't be about that charismatic leader though - that's the fate that Perot suffered, because people wanted him to be something he couldn't, so the Reform Party eventually and inevitably self-destructed. Even then, though, I'm not entirely convinced that such a part could survive for long.

I think that the breaking points in future American politics will be Federal vs. State control, which includes the debates about government size, taxes, protection of individual liberties and so forth; the war against terrorism and rogue states developing nuclear weapons; and immigration. I think that if a group of well-known political figures were to form a party with the stated principles of transferring most governmental and tax authority back to the States, vigorously prosecuting the war on terrorism while otherwise pulling back from overseas commitments, and allowing much easier immigration, such a party could easily pull about 1/3 of the Democrats and a similar proportion of Republicans into its fold. A large number of independents might also fold in, and at that point, there would be the possibility of real change. It's certainly possible, too, that the opposing parties would reform into a single party pushing massive Federal control and nanny-state welfare provisions combined with very restricted immigration and even greater intrusions on individual liberties in the name of "security." Such a part would likely, as the moderates got pushed out of it, become isolationist as well.

Certainly, it will be interesting.

Think You've Seen the Worst of the Clintons?

Not yet you haven't, but you will. Excerpt:

Brill, who defended the Clintons throughout the Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal, said that efforts to mislead him began after the former first lady got word he was writing his 9/11 book. She actually sought him out at the Ground Zero ceremony commemorating the first anniversary of the attacks. "I hear you want to talk to me about your book," he recalls her saying.

Thanks to Cold Fury for the link.

Libertarian with a Small 'L'

Down below the "More..." link below is a Libertarian Party press release, which demonstrates a major reason that I cannot be a member of that party, despite my generally-libertarian political and philosophical leanings. In summary, the release is an example of the Libertarian Party belief that foreign intervention is always wrong. Certainly, they would make the exception that if we were to be attacked, the nation that attacked us could be fought overseas. However, they tend to not draw any connections between September 11 and anything else (including Afghanistan - I don't have the letter but it was somewhat like the one below in tone).

What bunk! I certainly can see a principled position which states that if the US were to withdraw to the status of minor power, we'd be in far fewer wars. This is likely true. It's even possible that, with the European addiction to social spending and the Chinese tendency to only care about power in a regional sense, rather than in a global sense, we would not be in many wars if we didn't aggressively defend our interests overseas. The problem is that this approach takes account of neither the lethality of modern weapons (one attack with nuclear weapons on an American city is unacceptable) nor of the presence of non-state actors in foreign affairs. In other words, the Libertarian Party is stuck in the 1780s. And what a shame, because libertarianism is a direct child of the Enlightenment. If only we could harness the desire for minimalist government and individual natural rights, there would be a great value in the Libertarian Party. As it is, the party is a bunch of crackpots with a few useful people involved. Here is a quote from the press release:

As the war winds down it's clear what its legacy will include: the
death of thousands of innocent people; more embittered, anti-American
Arabs in search of revenge; another frustrating foray into nation-
building; massive economic costs for the American people; and a
framework for expanded, global war.

Is that really worth celebrating?

No, the legacy of this war will include fewer innocents dead than if we had not fought. Consider that the number of civilians killed in the war itself - including those killed by the Iraqi soldiers and paramilitaries and the non-Iraqis among the Fedayeen - was smaller than died in Iraq in a normal month pre-war. The legacy will include more Arabs examining their societies to determine how they came to this. It will include successful nation-building, as in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will certainly present massive economic costs to the American people, but likely smaller costs than would have been incurred by not acting. After all, how much have we spent in containing Iraq for the last 12 years? How much more would we have spent? And if Iraq actually completed nuclear weapons, and sold or gave one to a terrorist group to attack us or Israel, how much would we pay? It is possible that this will be a global war, but it is a war of existence for us, not a war of choice. Should we fail to fight this war now, on terrain of our choosing, while we are strong and our enemy is weak and fractious; we will be choosing instead to fight this war later, on the terrain and at the time of our enemy's choosing, when they are stronger and more united and we are weaker and more divided.

Given all of this, yeah, it's really worth celebrating.

===============================
OP-ED FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: April 16, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: GeorgeGetz@hq.LP.org
===============================

What have we really won in Iraq?

By Geoffrey Neale

Iraqis have been freed from the clutches of a ruthless dictator, and
that certainly is worth celebrating.

But what else has been gained from the speedy victory over Saddam
Hussein's regime?

Thus far the main justification for the invasion -- to protect the
United States from weapons of mass destruction -- remains unfulfilled,
since no such weapons have been found.

A secondary goal of the invasion -- to bring genuine democracy to Iraq
-- appears to be a long shot at best, according to most foreign policy
analysts.

Over 100 coalition soldiers were killed, wounded or taken captive.

An uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, number of innocent Iraqi men,
women, and children were killed or maimed, and a nation of 23 million
people lies in smoldering ruins as looters pick through the rubble.

The graphic TV images of the U.S. bombing campaign broadcast on Arab
networks may yet spawn "a thousand bin Ladens," warn terrorism experts,
while no evidence suggests that the region is now more favorably
inclined toward the United States.

U.S. taxpayers will soon fork over $80 billion for a "down payment" on
the war, and the ensuing occupation and reconstruction could cost
hundreds of billions of dollars.

An expanded war -- perhaps targeting Syria or Iran -- remains a
distinct possibility.

So even as President Bush prepares to declare victory over Iraq, it
seems fair to ask: What, specifically, has the United States won?

Only one tangible benefit springs to mind: the satisfaction of knowing
that millions of repressed people can now breathe the fresh air of
freedom.

But most Americans tacitly agree that toppling a dictator is an
insufficient reason to invade another nation. Otherwise, they would be
demanding that the U.S. government overthrow equally dictatorial
regimes in Burma, North Korea, Cuba, China, Libya, Sudan, and Saudi
Arabia.

Another potential benefit -- achieving democracy -- is considered at
least five years away by most foreign policy experts, who point out
that the Middle East has no tradition of democracy and no active
democratic movements.

James Dobbins, a U.S. diplomat who helped oversee nation-building
efforts in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, says, "It
isn't like the first day of Genesis, where the secretary of defense
passes his hand over Iraq and says, 'Let there be democracy.' "

In the short term, any leader who appears to be handpicked by the
United States, as President Hamid Karzai was in Afghanistan, will be
seen as illegitimate.

Even if genuinely free elections were to occur soon, Americans might
not like the results. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy
studies at the Cato Institute, points out that Shi'a Muslims, who
comprise over 60 percent of the Iraqi population, could elect a leader
with close ties to Iran's religious mullahs.

A second possibility, Preble notes, is that Kurds could choose leaders
demanding full-fledged independence from Iraq.

A third, chilling possibility is that the newly liberated Iraqis could
end up electing another Saddam Hussein. That scenario could unfold if
several candidates were to split the votes of Shiites and Kurds,
allowing the Sunni Muslim minority to unite behind a former Baath Party
official.

As the war draws to a close, it appears that the U.S. government has
invaded a sovereign nation to confiscate weapons that may not exist and
create a Western-style democracy that may never exist.

But it gets worse: This "victory" could end up making the entire world
a more dangerous place, thanks to Bush's shocking proclamation that a
U.S. president has a right to launch a pre-emptive strike against any
nation that he deems a potential threat.

"If" a foreign leader has weapons of mass destruction, the argument
goes, he "might" give them to terrorists. Therefore the United States
has the right to launch an offensive attack, destroy that regime and
kill thousands of innocent people in the process.

But why should such a "right" extend only to the United States? Nearly
every nation faces a threat, real or contrived, at some point.

Imagine what would happen if other nations adopted Bush's kill-first,
ask-questions-later policy.

Might nuclear-armed India launch a pre-emptive strike against its
bitter rival Pakistan, or vice versa? What if belligerent North Korean
leader Kim Jong-il, or an Iranian government that is reportedly close
to acquiring nuclear weapons, suddenly sense a threat to their national
security?

Unfortunately, the argument isn't just theoretical. On Monday,
Australian Prime Minister John Howard sparked outrage throughout
Southeast Asia when he asserted the right to launch pre-emptive anti-
terror strikes against other nations in the region.

Malaysian leaders immediately denounced Howard, and said such an attack
would be considered an act of war.

Nonetheless, the precedent has been set. The doctrine of pre-emptive
strike may soon pose a greater threat to world peace than Saddam
Hussein ever did.

As the war winds down it's clear what its legacy will include: the
death of thousands of innocent people; more embittered, anti-American
Arabs in search of revenge; another frustrating foray into nation-
building; massive economic costs for the American people; and a
framework for expanded, global war.

Is that really worth celebrating?

About the author: Geoffrey Neale is national chair of the Washington,
DC-based Libertarian Party.

Fisking Bill Clinton

Thanks to this pointer from Oki, I found an article about Bill Clinton's latest blather. Herewith my first Fisking:

NEW YORK (AFP) - Former US President Bill Clinton blasted US foreign policy adopted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, arguing the United States cannot kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries.

Amazing, Bill Clinton finally realized that it's possible to have a foreign policy, rather than just stumbling blindly from crisis to crisis hoping that no one notices the brunette under the desk. He's right though, that the US can't "kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries." Some individuals will need to disappear, and some soon-to-be-former leaders will need to be turned over to their soon-to-be-former slaves for the Mussolini treatment. Thanks for reminding us to use all of our options.

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board.

Something did and it does. One would hope that Mr. Clinton would remember what happened on September 11, but since he's not specific, I'd just like to remind him that our enemies deliberately attacked us in a way which created thousands of dead and billions of dollars in economic damage. This is not a small thing. This is not something to just get over. The world should thank us for not immediately irradiating the entire Middle East. And if they don't agree on our need to destroy terrorism the way that piracy was destroyed - knock it down into a little nub of a forgotten idea - then they should be prepared to be targetted or, at best, ignored (if they are irrelevant enough to ignore). This is a feature of our foreign policy, not a bug.

"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

So can you, Clinton, so can you.

The Democratic former president, who preceded George W. Bush at the White House,

...requiring a change of carpet and substantial repairs to equipment before President Bush could get down to real work.

said that sooner or later the United States had to find a way to cooperate with the world at large.

No. The world at large has to find a way to cooperate with us. When the bull is lose in the China shop, the thing to do is to get the China out, not to argue with the bull.

"We can't run," Clinton pointed out. "If you got an interdependent world, and you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make a deal."

A deal like the Balkans, where we put an unnatural end to a natural conflict, thus ensuring that not only will it not be resolved, but we'll be occupying the country for years to prevent renewed violence? Or a deal like Kosovo, where Clinton was perfectly willing to bomb Serbia into agreeing to an occupation, and to do so with the consent of neither the Congress nor the UN? Or a deal like N. Korea? Or a deal like that with the Palestinians, so they could kill as many Israeli children as they wanted, so long as they made the occasional paper concession? What kind of "deal" do you forsee, you ignorant self-involved weasel?

He said he believed Washington overreacted to German and French opposition to US plans for military action against Iraq and suggested that the current administration had trouble juggling foreign and domestic issues.

Let's see, the Germans and French attempted with every instrument of power they possess to prevent the United States from carrying out its foreign policy, which is (in case you weren't paying attention) to forever destroy the threat of terrorism as a policy by destroying terrorist groups and the regimes that assist and encourage them. They didn't use military force only, so far as their behavior suggests, because they have none worth using. The proper reaction to this is to declare that France and Germany are committing acts of war against the United States, and unless they cut it out we will add them to the target list. I'd say that, if anything, we underreacted.

The Clinton administration held its focus squarely on domestic issues, because that was what would pay off in political terms for them. There was no coherent focus on foreign policy, which is a large part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now. President Bush is pushing a domestic agenda, but mainly by making proposals and then letting Congress flesh them out or gut them. The President's focus is on making sure that we don't die tomorrow, or next week. That is the right thing to do.

"Since September 11, it looks like we can't hold two guns at the same time," Clinton said. "If you fight terrorism, you can't make America a better place to be."

Yet more proof that getting policy advice from Clinton is like getting policy advice from Carter. Sure, it's a good laugh, but it's not something to take seriously. And what's with describing "make[ing] America a better place to be as "holding [a] gun[]"? And while we're at it, let's just try and erase the image of Clinton holding his gun...

Clinton said that if he were at the White House right now he would scrap a 726-billion dollar tax cut proposal made by the president in January to stimulate the flagging economy.

Congress has since cut the proposal to 550 billion dollars in the case of the House of Representatives and 350 billion under a Senate version of the plan.

If Congress passes a 350-550 billion dollar tax cut, it is still an enormous victory for those of us who are overtaxed. Better than zero, or worse yet, a tax increase, which would have been the standard unthinking Democratic response (is there another kind?) to the economy's troubles at the end of the Clinton administration.

Fault Lines

At Winds of Change, Armed Liberal says:

Personally, I refuse to yield all the optimism to conservatives. I believe there are a number of liberals like me - who define their liberalism not by antipathy for the modern West, or more specifically for the U.S., but by a desire for more justice, more liberty, more equality, and a belief that we can have it all. I think that someone will find a way to channel our patriotism, our hope, and our energy into a political movement that can stand toe-to-toe with the conservative wave that is going to rise for the next few years in this country. Somone is going to outline a future for us, and challenge us to make it happen.

I believe that the old lines between Conservative and Liberal are blurring. In the 1990s, the Conservatives kicked out their reactionary, extremist idiots, and basically silenced the extreme right. The remainder is a moderate classical liberalism, with economic and foreign policy ideas drawn from the legacy of both Conservatives and Liberals in America.

The Liberals are beginning to find the same fault lines within their own party, between the Noam Chomsky left and the Dick Gephardt left. There is more in common between the Noam Chomsky left and the Pat Buchanan right than there is between the extreme left and the moderate left. I believe that the extreme right and the extreme left are coming together to make common cause. I belive that the moderate right and the moderate left need to do the same.

The kind of rightist that Bush represents and the kind of leftist that Armed Liberal represents have a lot in common. As Armed Liberal himself puts it:

And I'm happy to admit that it isn't for me because I am perfectly willing to stand with conservatives in believing in American exceptionalism.

I just think we got there for different reasons, and that we'll build the shining future using different tools.

I concur. I think, though, that too many on the moderate right and too many on the moderate left are blinded by the Republican and Democrat labels. The labels keep us from seeing our commonalities by emphasizing our differences. There is a thread of self-loathing and hatred of those who aren't "part of the tribe" which needs to be fought, and it will only be the combined efforts of the moderates in all parties and among independents which will be able to ward off the doomsayers and cynics enough to allow America to act, at home and abroad, optimistically.

This is a time when we need to come together - the moderate right, the moderate left, and the non-ideologically-blinded among the Libertarians and independents - in order to fashion a new polity in America, which believes and acts both at home and abroad on one simple principle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Not Getting It

I am deeply concerned about a current aspect of American politics. This problem was driven home to me when I watched an interview with an anti-war British MP on American TV. This MP had worked tirelessly to prevent PM Blair from deciding to go to war, and had voted against doing so. Yet once the vote was taken, this MP said (and I am paraphrasing here): "The decision has been taken, and it is in the nature of democratic governance that the decision taken is taken for all."

This is not the case in America lately. From the Right, during the Clinton presidency, came bumperstickers that asserted "Charlton Heston is my President." Now from the Left comes the call that this President's administration is illegitimate, and that all decisions made are therefore wrong, and if only it had been President Any Democrat, we would be all for going to war in Iraq, or whatever the issue of the day is.

I feel that we have to heal this rift, and soon, or it will destroy our ability to live as anything other than a tyranny with frequent changes of tyrant.

UPDATE (4/2): edited for clarity

To Give All Rather Than Give Up

History.

The Media Picture

Instapundit blogs about how difficult it is at this point to determine what's going on from the media reports, how many tiny slices of information confuse, rather than clarify, the big picture. He hints that this is the point of the program, to give much information and little knowledge.

He's probably right, but there are other angles to this as well. For one thing, we have reporters on the spot to dispell the kind of myths that arose around the Israeli fighting in Jenin. We have a fantastic set of slices to fill out the story, once the war is over and the outline is known, which will make the history of this war much easier to capture, at least from our side. And finally, we have lessened the most dangerous enemy the US can face: Western media hysteria.

Obviously, we haven't eliminated the last, and won't as long as the BBC is around. Oh, and the French. And colleges in general (hat tip: LGF). And the New York Times. Oh, hell, it would be easier to list the media institutions that are generally on the side of Western Enlightenment culture!

Summation of the Left

Here is perhaps the most concise summation of the anti-Enlightenment Left ever made:

We are mapless, we are lost, and we are distracted by gusts of wishful thinking.

It's actually funnier, taken in context. It is from Nicholas von Hoffman, talking about the war in Afghanistan (hat tip: Instapundit) just before we completely routed the Taliban. Of course, he was attempting to describe the US war effort, but he somehow more aptly described his own ideological tribe. And this is worth noting, in a context when the anti-Enlightenment intellectuals are braying about our impending defeat in Iraq.

Journalists and the War

Eric Burns, at the Fox News website, has a good essay on why journalists should remain unbiased when reporting the news, particularly news of such import as a war. Money quote:

Ultimately, journalists should care less about measuring the war’s outcomes than they do about providing information so that Americans can take their own measurements. They should add up the casualties and costs, calculate the time involved to achieve the stated goals, provide a variety of viewpoints about the eventual political consequences — and then turn the facts and figures and informed opinions over to their audiences.

As Glenn Reynolds would put it: indeed.

It's Polite to Act Surprised

Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.


Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Schisms

Current domestic and international politics are in a great state of flux in this post-Cold War world. Just as the 20th Century was dominated by the struggles of Collectivism (Nationalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Unionism) against Individualism; so the next century will be dominated by the struggles now playing out in the world around us. In the 20th century, a series of political and economic collectivist movements were in turn marginalized by the will of the Individualists in, primarily, the United States and the United Kingdom. In contrast, this century will be a time in which the Western nations attempt to define themselves, while simultaneously fighting off an existential threat from the Arab/Muslim worlds, which are themselves engaged in a deep and long-term struggle to define themselves.

In this post, I will summarize the two schisms. There will be further articles delving into each schism in more detail, and describing how it will be possible to preserve the Enlightenment. The specific topics of these articles are listed at the end of this post. I am writing this because I care deeply that the Enlightenment values win over the pomo/tranzi values, and that the West win over the Arab/Muslim world. In either case, defeat means at best a new Dark Age, and at worst it means the destruction of classical liberalism in the world. It is my hope that I will be able to help both in framing the debate, and in winning over converts to the side of classical liberalism and Enlightenment values.

In the Western nations, the schism is over how to secure freedom. On one side are the Classical Liberals, who champion the Enlightenment values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the other side are the Postmodernists and Transnationlists (henceforth Pomo/Tranzi), who champion the values (lifted from the French Revolution) of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Since each of these factions shares a history and culture, they frequently use each other's memes and mores to their own ends.

The Western Struggle is, in the end, nothing more than a refinement and extension of the conflicts of the 20th century. The primary difference is that, while the 20th century struggles were between nations which each espoused different political and economic principles, the 21st century struggles will be within nations, between global movements with like ideologies. The nations themselves will influence and be influenced by this struggle, but this is less of a struggle of nation on nation than was the case in the last century. Now, the struggle is between groups of differing ideological bases which, thanks largely to television and the Internet, spread across many nations. In other words, there is a large-scale ideological struggle, which is mirrored in the actions of nations, based on which group is strongest in any given nation at any given time.

This struggle is taking place within the Western cultures, which include the European nations, their former colonies which retained European values (including the Americas, South Africa, Australia/New Zealand and India) and those nations which adopted Western values (including Israel, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - and possibly including China). Another struggle, similar in some ways, is taking place within the Arab and Muslim worlds. These worlds do not overlap completely. The Arab nations are those which have predominantly Arab or assimilated populations, stretching from the Atlantic coast of northern Africa along the southern rim of the Mediterranean and across to Iraq, Syria/Lebanon and the Gulf States. The Muslim world is composed of the Muslims within the Arab world; non-Arab Muslim countries such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia; and Muslims in non-Muslim societies such as Europe. Not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. These worlds, too, are struggling with internal conflict.

In the Arab/Muslim worlds, the schism is over how best to restore and complete the Caliphate. One one side are the Arab Nationlists, who want to restore the Caliphate by uniting all Arabs into a single nation under the leadership of whichever Arab Nationalist is holding forth on the issue. Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and the Palestinians fall into this camp. On the other side are the Militant Muslim Fundamentalists, who want to restore the Caliphate by uniting all Muslims into a single community under Sharia Law as interpreted and guided by whichever Militant Muslim Fundamentalist is holding forth on the issue. On this side are the Ayatollahs of Iran (and Hezbollah, under Iranian influence), the Taliban, the Wahabbi sect in Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda and related groups (including Hamas - apparently the only significant Fundamentalist sect in the Palestinian conflict). As in the Western conflict, each side is deeply entwined in the history of the other, and often uses the memes and mores of the other side to their own ends.

The restoral of the Caliphate entails uniting all Arabs (for the Arab Nationalists) or Muslims (for the Militant Muslim Fundamentalists) into a single entity, then enlarging that entity to cover the world, either directly through control or indirectly through domination. For the Arab Nationalists, a resurgent Arab nation under their control would be sufficient, as long as it was a major power in the world. For the Fundamentalists, believing as they do that it is a religious obligation to convert every person in the world to either Islam or dhimmitude, there is no possibility of stopping with the unification of the Muslims.

Because it is generally forbidden for Muslims to kill Muslims, it is not possible for the Arab Nationalists and the Muslim Fundamentalists to directly fight each other. They could - it's not like there are not many, many, examples of Muslims killing each other in internecine conflicts - but in doing so they would alienate the vast majority of Muslims, who are more interested in trying to live a good and happy life than in being political. Since each movement needs the goodwill of the Muslim community generally, each has chosen to focus on the politically acceptable method of keeping score by who kills the most Infidels - with Jews counting for more than Gentiles as a general rule. (There is, after all, a religious component involved; though I believe that Militant Muslim Fundamentalism should be regarded as a political movement using religious memes for its source of legitimacy, rather than as a religious movement.) This goes a long way to explaining why each side calls Americans "Jews", even when it's a obviously meaningless thing to say. The goal of each of these movements is to boost their support within the Muslim community against the other movement, and killing Jews is a guaranteed way to get "street cred" in the Muslim world.

While each of these worlds is in internal conflict, the worlds are also in conflict with each other. This need not have been so; the West was content to navel gaze as long as we were allowed, and we'd happily go back to it if we thought that doing so wouldn't get us killed. September 11 woke the West to the fact that the Arab/Muslim struggle was using us as a scorecard. Well, at least, the Enlightened part of the West woke up; the pomo/tranzi crowd seems to be trying to slip back into a self-involved somnambulance. The story of this century - certainly of its first several decades - will be the story of how each of the two schisms is mended, and how the two cultures evolving out of those schisms interact and eventually fall into a stable relationship.

At the core of all of this is the inescapable conclusion that Osama bin Laden is correct in one important way: we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations, between the West and the Arab/Muslim worlds. Each of these cultures, though, is itself engaging in a struggle for internal definition. It is going to be a complicated and dangerous century. To quote Fezzik, in "The Princess Bride:" I hope we win.

---

This is the first of a series of planned posts. These posts will deal in much more depth with the issues raised here. Although this could change as I develop the ideas, right now I plan to write posts on the following topics:

• The Enlightenment, Slavery as a disfigurement of the Enlightenment, and the struggles of the 19th century
• Postmodernism and Transnationalism
• The conservative/neo-conservative journey from reactionary preservation of the previous struggle to a real grasp of the Enlightenment and the (hopeful) liberal equivalent, from reactionary preservation of the collectivist struggle to a real grasp of the Enlightenment
• The riddle and centrality of China - western (collectivist) in outlook, but becoming more and more Enlightened as they struggle to modernize
• Why it's necessary for pomo/tranzi philosophy to be defeated and how to do it
  
• Arab Nationalism, Militant Islamic Fundamentalism and Modernism in the Arab/Muslim worlds
  
• Arab Nationalism
  
• Muslim Fundamentalism
  
• defeating the two enemies; including playing them off against each other
  
• a summary of all that has gone before
  

UPDATE: Please note that I have decided not to continue this series per se. I'll write on these topics, but other writers are doing a better job of covering this than I can, and so this particular series would be not very useful, I think. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll revisit the idea.

Political Philosophy - or Lack Thereof

Brink Lindsey doesn't know what to call his political orientation, and Steven Den Beste has given up on labels altogether. I've had similar problems (and not just with politics) for a long time, and I've come around to thinking of myself as a federalist (although no doubt I disagree in areas with those who call themselves Federalists). By this, I mean that I want to have government act at the lowest possible level.

If I do not like my school district's behavior and policies, I can move to a nearby town. In so doing, I would shed the problem policies, but still be able to keep my job and visit my nearby friends. If, on the other hand, school policy is set by the state government, I have to move out of state to escape that policy, and have to change jobs (most likely) and will not easily be able to visit friends who currently live nearby. The cost of escaping the bad policy has gone up dramatically. Worse, the further I have to move, the more likely it is that I will have to go to a place with different policies I disagree with, just to avoid the local policies I disagree with.

An example of how this is a problem is Social Security. I don't happen to believe - indeed I don't think any rational person under the age of about 50 can believe - that Social Security will provide a decent retirement income. I do believe that the amount of money invested in Social Security both directly and by my employers over the last 15 years would provide me and my wife a comfortable retirement, had it been carefully invested by me. I cannot get out of this system, which has taken a little less than 29% of my earned income for 15 years and will give me back remarkably little, unless I give up my citizenship, stop working and become destitute or become a member of Congress. In any of these cases, the costs are higher to me than the cost of just forking over the money. It's a heck of a cost, though! If this were a Texas retirement program, I could move to another relatively free state, like Colorado, and the cost of escaping the burden, while still non-trivial, would be reasonable in comparison to the cost of the program. Since it is a Federal program, I have no reasonable-cost way out.

In general, I believe that the United States would be much improved by any movement in the direction of dissemination of power to the lowest possible level. Actually, I take that back! That sentence was an example of how corrupted our political language has become. It should read: in general, I believe that the United States would be much improved any movement by local government to reclaim lost powers from the States, and by the States to reclaim lost powers from the Federal government. After all, it is theoretically the case that the governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and thus have only the sovereignty we grant them.

In the end, I really cannot find a better label than federalist for this philosophy.