Four Supreme Court cases over the past few weeks have piqued my interest. I'll run them down here and offer my own thoughts. Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer or a constitutional law scholar.
Case 1: Crawford v. Marion County (IN) Election Board
Brief Background: Indiana state law requires a very strict check of voter identification before an election takes place.
Question Posed: Are strict voter identification laws an undue burden on voters?
Answer: No, by 6-3, though the decision was split and there are some interesting opinions at work:
- Justices Stevens, Roberts, and Kennedy acknowledged that while Indiana did not present evidence indicating the necessity for a strict voter identification law, neither did the petitioners present evidence of legal voters being prevented from voting. In other words, they essentially argued that the petitioners lacked standing: they had no proof of individual harm.
- Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas took it a step further: the law was nondiscriminatory as a voting regulation, and was perfectly constitutional because it posed the burdens equally.
- Justices Ginsburg and Souter put the onus on Indiana to prove why it needed any restriction on voting because there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Souter penned the dissent.
- In a separate dissent, Justice Breyer questioned why the law had to be so strict, pointing towards fairly permissive laws in Florida and Georgia, which allowed for far more identification types (student IDs).
Voting rights are definitely an issue where the Court has responsibility; the Court is the country's leading opponent of the "tyranny of the majority," and it's very easy to manipulate voting laws in that way. With that said, I'm with the lead opinion on this. Without any concrete evidence that people are harmed by this, I am reluctant to strike down a state law. Strict voter ID laws have a justifiable purpose: to prevent voter fraud.
For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html.
Case 2: Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
Brief Background: Nineteen years ago, an Exxon oil tanker spilled a massive amount of crude oil off the Alaskan coast. Exxon was charged $507 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. An appeals court reduced the punitive damages to $2.5 billion.
Question: Is $2.5 billion too much?
Answer: Yes, by quite a bit. The Court established a 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages in maritime cases in a 5-3 decision.
- Justices Souter, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy all supported a 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages.
- Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer disagreed, arguing that the damage caused warranted severe punishment as a deterrent for future negligence. Stevens also argued that establishing limits is a job for the legislature.
- Justices Scalia and Thomas, interestingly, filed a concurring opinion indicating that they made their decision based on a precedent from a case that they believed had been decided in error -- Scalia once wrote, "the Due Process Clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages" (State Farm v. Campbell, 2003).
Excessive damages are a problem, certainly, and the $5 billion punitive damages amount was excessive. But in reality, once it was knocked down to $2.5 billion, it was only a 5:1 ratio. Is that really that excessive, to warrant further judicial interference in the process? And why is the court establishing a punitive/compensatory damages ratio? That is certainly the job for a legislature.
I think that Scalia has the right idea. The idea that the Court should really be going after excessive damages is misguided. With that said, the Court has established that it does, and accordingly, is doing so in this case. I like the idea of a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio as a rule, but I would like it a lot more if it were put forth by a legislature rather than the Court.
One thing that you will not see in mainstream coverage of this is the Scalia/Thomas principled concurrence. This is important. The two are falling in with the conservative bloc, but only reluctantly. If the Court had decided, as they would prefer, to avoid dealing with punitive damage cases, then Exxon would still be paying $2.5 billion.
For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26punitive.html.
Case 3: Kennedy v. Louisiana
Brief Background: Patrick Kennedy, a 40-ish Louisiana resident, was tried and found guilty of raping his eight-year old stepdaughter and was sentenced to death for the crime.
Question: Is the death penalty a proportional punishment for child rape in cases where the victim survives?
Answer: No, apparently. The Court ruled 5-4 against.
- Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer argued that the death penalty was not proportionate for child rape.
- Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia dissented, arguing that the Louisiana legislature passed the law and it did not fall under the umbrella of cruel and unusual punishment for such a crime.
I must say that I was surprised when I agreed with Obama 100% on this, but I do. He said:
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."
More importantly, though, is the overreach. This was a democratically-decided issue. And it's not like he's innocent. He was found guilty!
I think I am with Obama on the death penalty 100%. My terminology is generally "used sparingly, if supported by a state population."
Case 4: District of Columbia v. Heller
Brief Background: The District of Columbia has a law on the books from the 1970s that bans handgun ownership entirely.
Question: Does this ban violate the Second Amendment?
Answer: Yes, by 5-4.
- Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito ruled that the ban was a violation of the Second Amendment.
- Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter dissented, arguing that the Founders never would have restricted the federal government's ability to control firearm ownership altogether.
The Kennedy swing vote remains in full force with the last two decisions.
There certainly was standing here; a security guard wanted to own a gun, and he felt his safety was imperiled by not being allowed to own one. In characteristically blunt fashion, Scalia noted that handguns are preferable for self-defense because they "can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
I think that constitutionally, the Court absolutely could strike down such a ban, based on a basic interpretation of the Second Amendment. Strict background checks and waiting periods are not really constitutionally questionable, but a total ban on guns anywhere is certainly not compatible with a right to bear arms. What bothers me more is how active the Court is being.
I think I would have ruled as follows:
- Crawford v. Marion County (IN) Election Board: with Stevens and the majority
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker: reluctantly with Scalia, using the same reasoning
- Kennedy v. Louisiana: with the dissent
- District of Columbia v. Heller: probably concurring, with a reaffirmation of the types of restrictions that can be put in place by a democratically-elected legislature
Comity, then, where the judiciary defers to the other democratically-elected branches, is out of style. I am not a fan of this type of activism. I am happy with Crawford, at least.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Handicapping the VPs, Again
InTrade.com has updated with some new contracts! This is probably the best way to handicap these selection processes. Here's a ranked list of potential Obama VP selections; I've ranked them simply by the price of the most recent sale of their contract, taking anyone who has sold at 5 or greater:
As of Tuesday, 6/24, 5 PM:
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) - 22.0
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - 12.0
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) - 11.4
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 11.0
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) - 8.5
Gov. Ed. Rendell (D-PA) - 7.7
Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark - 6.9
Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) - 6.3
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) - 6.0
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) - 5.1
Fmr. VP Al Gore (D-TN) - 5.0
Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 5.0
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) - 5.0
Personally, I would be very surprised if either Webb or Hagel gets the spot. Hagel is a shrewd pick, but he's a Republican, and Obama would be infuriating a very active base by picking him. Hagel is a pretty strong conservative, except on the war. Webb, to me, is too much of a neophyte. He would help in Virginia, certainly, but between the two of them, you would have fewer than six years of federal experience. Webb would have been a perfect pick for Hillary, if she had not wanted Obama. With that in mind, I don't like the top two.
Sam Nunn, to me,
seems like a joke. He's on the "list" every time; my feeling is that someone in the Obama campaign has a good sense of humor.
Richardson, Biden, and Clark all add some experience and gravitas to an Obama ticket. Sebelius is a popular governor in Kansas and also fits quite well. Evan Bayh would be interesting as well, though he was an ardent Clinton supporter during the primary campaign.
The InTrade GOP list is significantly shorter.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) - 20.0
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) - 17.8
Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) - 15.8
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) - 11.3
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) - 10.7
Gov. Bobby Jindal (D-LA) - 10.0
Fmr. Dir. of OMB Rob Portman (R-OH) - 6.8
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) - 6.0
Carly Fiorina - 5.0
Investors seem to be skeptical of all the Pawlenty buzz. He's heavily talked up, but he's no higher than Jim Webb. Romney and Huckabee both show strongly here, with both, I'm sure, angling for a spot on the ticket. Crist is very popular but could probably stand to stay in office for a full term; 2012 is probably in the offing for him. Same with Sarah Palin, who is like Crist, but on the opposite side of the country, and significantly more popular. Jindal fits that, too. Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, and Crist will all be talked up over the next few years. They are the next generation of GOP leaders.
I would be amused by McCain/Lieberman and Obama/Hagel, which would clearly signal that both sides want to put the war front and center (though my guess is that Obama would rather not, at this point). McCain/Fiorina is interesting, though: she's a major outsider and a business leader. It would be unorthodox, but perhaps that's Mac's style.
The VP pick is far less for show than it was even twenty years ago. Gore and Cheney were both powerful figures in government, and both McCain and Obama have issues as candidates that could be mitigated by good VP picks. In other words, I'll keep watching this.
As of Tuesday, 6/24, 5 PM:
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) - 22.0
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - 12.0
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) - 11.4
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 11.0
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) - 8.5
Gov. Ed. Rendell (D-PA) - 7.7
Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark - 6.9
Fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) - 6.3
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) - 6.0
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) - 5.1
Fmr. VP Al Gore (D-TN) - 5.0
Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 5.0
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) - 5.0
Personally, I would be very surprised if either Webb or Hagel gets the spot. Hagel is a shrewd pick, but he's a Republican, and Obama would be infuriating a very active base by picking him. Hagel is a pretty strong conservative, except on the war. Webb, to me, is too much of a neophyte. He would help in Virginia, certainly, but between the two of them, you would have fewer than six years of federal experience. Webb would have been a perfect pick for Hillary, if she had not wanted Obama. With that in mind, I don't like the top two.
Sam Nunn, to me,
seems like a joke. He's on the "list" every time; my feeling is that someone in the Obama campaign has a good sense of humor.
Richardson, Biden, and Clark all add some experience and gravitas to an Obama ticket. Sebelius is a popular governor in Kansas and also fits quite well. Evan Bayh would be interesting as well, though he was an ardent Clinton supporter during the primary campaign.
The InTrade GOP list is significantly shorter.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) - 20.0
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) - 17.8
Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) - 15.8
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) - 11.3
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) - 10.7
Gov. Bobby Jindal (D-LA) - 10.0
Fmr. Dir. of OMB Rob Portman (R-OH) - 6.8
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) - 6.0
Carly Fiorina - 5.0
Investors seem to be skeptical of all the Pawlenty buzz. He's heavily talked up, but he's no higher than Jim Webb. Romney and Huckabee both show strongly here, with both, I'm sure, angling for a spot on the ticket. Crist is very popular but could probably stand to stay in office for a full term; 2012 is probably in the offing for him. Same with Sarah Palin, who is like Crist, but on the opposite side of the country, and significantly more popular. Jindal fits that, too. Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, and Crist will all be talked up over the next few years. They are the next generation of GOP leaders.
I would be amused by McCain/Lieberman and Obama/Hagel, which would clearly signal that both sides want to put the war front and center (though my guess is that Obama would rather not, at this point). McCain/Fiorina is interesting, though: she's a major outsider and a business leader. It would be unorthodox, but perhaps that's Mac's style.
The VP pick is far less for show than it was even twenty years ago. Gore and Cheney were both powerful figures in government, and both McCain and Obama have issues as candidates that could be mitigated by good VP picks. In other words, I'll keep watching this.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hawkins' Conservatism
I wrote this a while ago and never bothered to post it.
John Hawkins on Conservatism
I love this style of piece, mostly because I like to compare myself to the various statements. Hawkins made a list of statements about his own reasons for becoming a conservative. As a self-proclaimed conservative, I would like to examine them, and then I would like to add a little bit.
I don't think some politician in Washington who has never held a job outside of politics in his entire life, has a better handle on what to do with my money than I do.
Agreed. I think he's being a bit harsh to politicians; my district's representative was a friggin' nuclear physicist and 5-time Jeopardy champion, so he's got some game. But I think the point in this is ownership and the responsibilities of ownership. We own our money and should have as much freedom with it as is practicable.
I don't resent wealthy people. To the contrary, I want to become one of them one day.
Agreed. I don't have any particular ambition to become wealthy (I have desires for wealth, but they cannot really be expressed in monetary terms), but I have no problems with people who do aspire to be wealthy. Wealth is good. If I managed to make a lot of money in my life, I'd be cool with that, though.
Government policies should be based on whether they work or not and whether they are constitutional, not on whether they make the people advocating them feel "nice" or "mean."
Agreed. He's hitting with a simplified version of the legal underpinnings of conservatism here. It seems a bit more snarky than genuinely based in a profound respect for the law.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." In other words, I'm not a victim, you're not a victim, and 99 times out of a hundred, the person on TV screaming about how he's a victim, isn't a victim either. If you're not happy with your life, it's your responsibility to fix it, not the government's responsibility.
George Will likes to write about this a lot, this "culture-of-victimhood," as he would probably call it. I probably would agree with this, but I think that conservatives sometimes have a tendency to downplay legitimate cases of "victimhood." There's a fine line you walk here.
I don't get upset that the federal government "doesn't care about me." In fact, I'd be pleased if it forgets that I exist.
Agreed. I would also like it to forget about the money I owe it, or, for that matter, to be more discriminating about student loans (the government might, for instance, grant more favorable loans to particular institutions that actually work to keep costs down). I do believe in contracts, though.
Human beings are inherently superior to animals. That doesn't mean we should mistreat them or take them for granted, but it does mean that what's good for humankind is more important than what's good for animals.
Whether or not this is true, there are a couple of problems with the sentiment. We know that carelessness often destroys things like food chains that help sustain us. Overall, though, I would lean "human" in a dispute, but you have to at least be cognizant of the environmental ramifications of things you do. Ideally, it would be internalized into economic evaluations of situations.
I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of the world. As such, my loyalty will always belong to this country and its people, not to any other nation, group of nations, or any sort of world governing body.
This is crass, but I agree. The nation-state is the organizing body of the planet. We should be sensitive to the needs of others, when possible (which is also often good for us, b/c it's not good to have billions of people pissed off at you), but we need to prioritize correctly.
I believe women and men are different, should be treated differently, and are not interchangeable. There are jobs women tend to be better at than men and vice-versa. There are ways a man behaves that women shouldn't behave in and vice-versa.
I agree that men and women are different, but I do not believe that the two sexes should be excluded from any opportunities. Perhaps there are jobs that women are better than men at, and vice versa. But what, pray tell, is your distinction here? Conventional wisdom? That's not strong enough here, for me. Biology should not be censored from the discourse, but we cannot accept biological determinism as an answer for gender inequity.
There are no fantastic new programs left for the federal government to implement.
I'm pretty sure I agree with this. Someone might come up with something, but I think that generally, programs and laws need to be cut and repealed (Sarbanes-Oxley, for one) before we start thinking about new programs. The federal government has a function and a place, but it's oversized right now.
It isn't the job of the federal government to make us successful; it's the job of the federal government to create an environment that allows us to make ourselves successful.
This is a little soundbyteish (moreso than the other ones, even!), but the point is sound. Government should ensure a level playing field. The rest is in our hands.
I believe that citizens of the United States have more to be proud of than the people of other countries and that every one of us should cherish this country and should thank God that we've been given the privilege of being part of such a great nation.
I've gotten a lot of flak from some for buying into this ideal, and there is a deep philosophical question about patriotism that has legs, I think: why should we take pride in the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers when we had nothing to do with them at all? The short answer to this is that we must take pride in our own ability to perpetuate what they created, moreso than what they did, but failing to understand, respect, and honor what they did makes it much harder to perpetuate it.
The market and private industry almost always do a better job of allocating resources than the federal government could ever hope to do.
I disagree with his phraseology, because governments have proven themselves to be fairly adept at lessening income gaps by simply reducing overall levels of wealth through tax policy, welfare, and confiscation. I like the "making the pie bigger" way of describing this aspect of conservatism more than his version. But I do believe that the market and private industry are more efficient than government.
Morals do matter. "If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." If that ever happens, it would be a tragedy not just for us and our children, but for the whole world.
Nice line, but what does it mean? What are you advocating here? I will not accept this as a pillar of my conservatism on faith, without more explanation.
"Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history." - Thomas Sowell
I like the sentiments, in general, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better than we did in the past. The quote, as it is presented, is his first argument in favor of Burkean Conservatism. He fails to take it to the Robert Peel level: sometimes, changes and improvements must be made in society in order to preserve the customs and institutions of that society. Moreover, sometimes, positive changes need to be made. The way in which we pursue those changes should be sensitive to tradition and should, if at all possible, avoid a revolutionary approach.
People of all races should be treated equally and any laws, whether we're talking about Jim Crow laws or Affirmative Action, that do otherwise are immoral, unconstitutional, and un-American.
It is ridiculous to equate Jim Crow with affirmative action, so I reject this statement out of hand. I do believe, however, that race-based affirmative action is a net negative, in that it creates an environment for unwarranted resentment. Simply accounting more for a person's prior circumstances in evaluating their future potential would have a similar effect without being as degrading as having people wonder if you should even be where you are.
Having a government that is too involved in our lives is far more of a threat than a government that isn’t involved enough.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Tyranny comes from too much government, not too little. The unrepublican (small-r) "tyranny of the majority" can be effectively prevented with limited government.
My priorities are God, family, and country, in that order.
I don't think having your priorities ranked as such are required to be conservative. Hell, I don't think you need to believe in God or to have a family to be conservative. I also think those could be your priorities, and you could be liberal.
Our tax rate is too high as it is and if it's not producing enough revenue for Washington, D.C. then they should start trying to live within their means instead of asking us to pony up more money.
It would be nice to see government simply cut programs that they couldn't pay for. Some national debt is OK, but generally, tax cuts should be offset by budget cuts, or at least spending freezes.
Life begins at the moment of conception and we have an obligation to speak up for the children that are being exterminated via abortion since they can't speak up for themselves.
How do you know that? What difference is there between a human fetus at two weeks old and an elderly cat that you decide to euthanize, as far as thinking capacity or living capacity? Indeed, we have an obligation to work to prevent abortions, particularly late-term abortions. But we also must be practical, and there are a lot of fully-human lives that would be harmed greatly by Draconian abortion laws.
I believe the point of allowing people to emigrate to this country should be to benefit the people who are already here. With that in mind, everyone who wants to become an American citizen should come here legally, should learn our national language, which is English, should assimilate, and should pay his own way and be ineligible for programs like welfare and food stamps.
Generally, I agree with this. Immigration should be mostly open, and some of the quotas systems should be revised. Learning English is important for immigrants, but it is far more important for their children. I do not believe it is wise to require everyone who immigrates to the US to learn more than basic English, which I suspect most would try to do anyway. It is their children, however, who must learn English. Based on the positive US immigrant tradition, I would reject out of hand any attempts at establishing Spanish or anything else as a national language.
I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
Agreed.
The debt we have in this country is not because you haven't given enough of your money to Washington; it's because the politicians in Washington have spent too much money.
Agreed.
I believe that Southerners, white males, the rich, business owners, Republicans, Christians, and the other groups that the Left looks down its nose at deserve every bit as much respect and protection under the law as the Left's favorite protected classes and minority groups.
Agreed, particularly about the rich.
There is a meaningful difference between tolerating behavior and deeming it to be acceptable or good.
Agreed! South Park did a great episode where they discussed the difference between tolerance and acceptance. We have a responsibility to be tolerant of different lifestyles. Government would be too heavy-handed, however, if it forced people to accept various lifestyles that they did not support.
If we lose our freedom in this country, it won't be because of a foreign invader; it'll be because our own government took it away from us a bit at a time with one law after another designed to "help" us.
Probably true. A foreign invader seems particularly unlikely, as does a total "loss of freedom," particularly in a country with free and fair elections. It's a bit alarmist, but Abe Lincoln was onto the same thing back in the 1830s.
We have a moral obligation to leave a better America to our children than our parents left to us.
I suppose so.
While Hawkins hits on some good points, his list is a little mean and a little bit off in places.
Hawkins did not offer any of his own words in favor of a Burkean conservatism, where tradition is respected and organic change is favored over government-driven change. It's best not to be dogmatic about these things, of course, but I think it is a good goal, along with most of these principles.
Someday, I will lay out my own political manifesto. I'm sure it will be better than Hawkins'. Of course, mine may well be based on flexibility, so perhaps I shouldn't write a manifesto at all.
John Hawkins on Conservatism
I love this style of piece, mostly because I like to compare myself to the various statements. Hawkins made a list of statements about his own reasons for becoming a conservative. As a self-proclaimed conservative, I would like to examine them, and then I would like to add a little bit.
I don't think some politician in Washington who has never held a job outside of politics in his entire life, has a better handle on what to do with my money than I do.
Agreed. I think he's being a bit harsh to politicians; my district's representative was a friggin' nuclear physicist and 5-time Jeopardy champion, so he's got some game. But I think the point in this is ownership and the responsibilities of ownership. We own our money and should have as much freedom with it as is practicable.
I don't resent wealthy people. To the contrary, I want to become one of them one day.
Agreed. I don't have any particular ambition to become wealthy (I have desires for wealth, but they cannot really be expressed in monetary terms), but I have no problems with people who do aspire to be wealthy. Wealth is good. If I managed to make a lot of money in my life, I'd be cool with that, though.
Government policies should be based on whether they work or not and whether they are constitutional, not on whether they make the people advocating them feel "nice" or "mean."
Agreed. He's hitting with a simplified version of the legal underpinnings of conservatism here. It seems a bit more snarky than genuinely based in a profound respect for the law.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." In other words, I'm not a victim, you're not a victim, and 99 times out of a hundred, the person on TV screaming about how he's a victim, isn't a victim either. If you're not happy with your life, it's your responsibility to fix it, not the government's responsibility.
George Will likes to write about this a lot, this "culture-of-victimhood," as he would probably call it. I probably would agree with this, but I think that conservatives sometimes have a tendency to downplay legitimate cases of "victimhood." There's a fine line you walk here.
I don't get upset that the federal government "doesn't care about me." In fact, I'd be pleased if it forgets that I exist.
Agreed. I would also like it to forget about the money I owe it, or, for that matter, to be more discriminating about student loans (the government might, for instance, grant more favorable loans to particular institutions that actually work to keep costs down). I do believe in contracts, though.
Human beings are inherently superior to animals. That doesn't mean we should mistreat them or take them for granted, but it does mean that what's good for humankind is more important than what's good for animals.
Whether or not this is true, there are a couple of problems with the sentiment. We know that carelessness often destroys things like food chains that help sustain us. Overall, though, I would lean "human" in a dispute, but you have to at least be cognizant of the environmental ramifications of things you do. Ideally, it would be internalized into economic evaluations of situations.
I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of the world. As such, my loyalty will always belong to this country and its people, not to any other nation, group of nations, or any sort of world governing body.
This is crass, but I agree. The nation-state is the organizing body of the planet. We should be sensitive to the needs of others, when possible (which is also often good for us, b/c it's not good to have billions of people pissed off at you), but we need to prioritize correctly.
I believe women and men are different, should be treated differently, and are not interchangeable. There are jobs women tend to be better at than men and vice-versa. There are ways a man behaves that women shouldn't behave in and vice-versa.
I agree that men and women are different, but I do not believe that the two sexes should be excluded from any opportunities. Perhaps there are jobs that women are better than men at, and vice versa. But what, pray tell, is your distinction here? Conventional wisdom? That's not strong enough here, for me. Biology should not be censored from the discourse, but we cannot accept biological determinism as an answer for gender inequity.
There are no fantastic new programs left for the federal government to implement.
I'm pretty sure I agree with this. Someone might come up with something, but I think that generally, programs and laws need to be cut and repealed (Sarbanes-Oxley, for one) before we start thinking about new programs. The federal government has a function and a place, but it's oversized right now.
It isn't the job of the federal government to make us successful; it's the job of the federal government to create an environment that allows us to make ourselves successful.
This is a little soundbyteish (moreso than the other ones, even!), but the point is sound. Government should ensure a level playing field. The rest is in our hands.
I believe that citizens of the United States have more to be proud of than the people of other countries and that every one of us should cherish this country and should thank God that we've been given the privilege of being part of such a great nation.
I've gotten a lot of flak from some for buying into this ideal, and there is a deep philosophical question about patriotism that has legs, I think: why should we take pride in the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers when we had nothing to do with them at all? The short answer to this is that we must take pride in our own ability to perpetuate what they created, moreso than what they did, but failing to understand, respect, and honor what they did makes it much harder to perpetuate it.
The market and private industry almost always do a better job of allocating resources than the federal government could ever hope to do.
I disagree with his phraseology, because governments have proven themselves to be fairly adept at lessening income gaps by simply reducing overall levels of wealth through tax policy, welfare, and confiscation. I like the "making the pie bigger" way of describing this aspect of conservatism more than his version. But I do believe that the market and private industry are more efficient than government.
Morals do matter. "If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." If that ever happens, it would be a tragedy not just for us and our children, but for the whole world.
Nice line, but what does it mean? What are you advocating here? I will not accept this as a pillar of my conservatism on faith, without more explanation.
"Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history." - Thomas Sowell
I like the sentiments, in general, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better than we did in the past. The quote, as it is presented, is his first argument in favor of Burkean Conservatism. He fails to take it to the Robert Peel level: sometimes, changes and improvements must be made in society in order to preserve the customs and institutions of that society. Moreover, sometimes, positive changes need to be made. The way in which we pursue those changes should be sensitive to tradition and should, if at all possible, avoid a revolutionary approach.
People of all races should be treated equally and any laws, whether we're talking about Jim Crow laws or Affirmative Action, that do otherwise are immoral, unconstitutional, and un-American.
It is ridiculous to equate Jim Crow with affirmative action, so I reject this statement out of hand. I do believe, however, that race-based affirmative action is a net negative, in that it creates an environment for unwarranted resentment. Simply accounting more for a person's prior circumstances in evaluating their future potential would have a similar effect without being as degrading as having people wonder if you should even be where you are.
Having a government that is too involved in our lives is far more of a threat than a government that isn’t involved enough.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Tyranny comes from too much government, not too little. The unrepublican (small-r) "tyranny of the majority" can be effectively prevented with limited government.
My priorities are God, family, and country, in that order.
I don't think having your priorities ranked as such are required to be conservative. Hell, I don't think you need to believe in God or to have a family to be conservative. I also think those could be your priorities, and you could be liberal.
Our tax rate is too high as it is and if it's not producing enough revenue for Washington, D.C. then they should start trying to live within their means instead of asking us to pony up more money.
It would be nice to see government simply cut programs that they couldn't pay for. Some national debt is OK, but generally, tax cuts should be offset by budget cuts, or at least spending freezes.
Life begins at the moment of conception and we have an obligation to speak up for the children that are being exterminated via abortion since they can't speak up for themselves.
How do you know that? What difference is there between a human fetus at two weeks old and an elderly cat that you decide to euthanize, as far as thinking capacity or living capacity? Indeed, we have an obligation to work to prevent abortions, particularly late-term abortions. But we also must be practical, and there are a lot of fully-human lives that would be harmed greatly by Draconian abortion laws.
I believe the point of allowing people to emigrate to this country should be to benefit the people who are already here. With that in mind, everyone who wants to become an American citizen should come here legally, should learn our national language, which is English, should assimilate, and should pay his own way and be ineligible for programs like welfare and food stamps.
Generally, I agree with this. Immigration should be mostly open, and some of the quotas systems should be revised. Learning English is important for immigrants, but it is far more important for their children. I do not believe it is wise to require everyone who immigrates to the US to learn more than basic English, which I suspect most would try to do anyway. It is their children, however, who must learn English. Based on the positive US immigrant tradition, I would reject out of hand any attempts at establishing Spanish or anything else as a national language.
I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
Agreed.
The debt we have in this country is not because you haven't given enough of your money to Washington; it's because the politicians in Washington have spent too much money.
Agreed.
I believe that Southerners, white males, the rich, business owners, Republicans, Christians, and the other groups that the Left looks down its nose at deserve every bit as much respect and protection under the law as the Left's favorite protected classes and minority groups.
Agreed, particularly about the rich.
There is a meaningful difference between tolerating behavior and deeming it to be acceptable or good.
Agreed! South Park did a great episode where they discussed the difference between tolerance and acceptance. We have a responsibility to be tolerant of different lifestyles. Government would be too heavy-handed, however, if it forced people to accept various lifestyles that they did not support.
If we lose our freedom in this country, it won't be because of a foreign invader; it'll be because our own government took it away from us a bit at a time with one law after another designed to "help" us.
Probably true. A foreign invader seems particularly unlikely, as does a total "loss of freedom," particularly in a country with free and fair elections. It's a bit alarmist, but Abe Lincoln was onto the same thing back in the 1830s.
We have a moral obligation to leave a better America to our children than our parents left to us.
I suppose so.
While Hawkins hits on some good points, his list is a little mean and a little bit off in places.
Hawkins did not offer any of his own words in favor of a Burkean conservatism, where tradition is respected and organic change is favored over government-driven change. It's best not to be dogmatic about these things, of course, but I think it is a good goal, along with most of these principles.
Someday, I will lay out my own political manifesto. I'm sure it will be better than Hawkins'. Of course, mine may well be based on flexibility, so perhaps I shouldn't write a manifesto at all.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Electoral Math I
I like doing electoral math. It's easy math (all addition, really), and you can get some cool scenarios out of it. Here's my first map: a plausible 269-269 tie.
This is an interesting one. To get this, the following things have to happen:
1. Obama has to fail to resonate in Ohio.
2. Michigan Democrats have to be alienated by the DNC's gaffes there earlier in the year.
3. McCain has to continue to be popular in New Hampshire.
4. Virginia has to stay with the GOP.
5. And, the weirdest one: Obama has to win the popular vote in the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District.
Nebraska allocates its electoral votes strangely: the overall popular vote winner gets two votes, and the remaining three are allocated based on the popular vote totals in each district. The Nebraska 2nd is, essentially, Greater Omaha. Obama could win that district, siphoning off one of Nebraska's 5 electoral votes.
The split would be as follows:
Of course, a 269-269 split would be thrown into the House, with each state delegation getting one vote. THAT would be cool.
This is an interesting one. To get this, the following things have to happen:
1. Obama has to fail to resonate in Ohio.
2. Michigan Democrats have to be alienated by the DNC's gaffes there earlier in the year.
3. McCain has to continue to be popular in New Hampshire.
4. Virginia has to stay with the GOP.
5. And, the weirdest one: Obama has to win the popular vote in the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District.
Nebraska allocates its electoral votes strangely: the overall popular vote winner gets two votes, and the remaining three are allocated based on the popular vote totals in each district. The Nebraska 2nd is, essentially, Greater Omaha. Obama could win that district, siphoning off one of Nebraska's 5 electoral votes.
The split would be as follows:
| OBAMA - 269 | MCCAIN - 269 |
| California - 55 | Alabama - 9 |
| Colorado - 9 | Alaska - 3 |
| Connecticut - 7 | Arizona - 10 |
| DC - 3 | Arkansas - 6 |
| Delaware - 3 | Florida - 27 |
| Hawaii - 4 | Georgia - 15 |
| Illinois - 21 | Idaho - 4 |
| Iowa - 7 | Indiana - 11 |
| Maine - 4 | Kansas - 6 |
| Maryland - 10 | Kentucky - 8 |
| Massachusetts - 12 | Louisiana - 9 |
| Minnesota - 10 | Michigan - 17 |
| Missouri - 11 | Mississippi - 6 |
| Nebraska - 1 | Montana - 3 |
| Nevada - 5 | Nebraska - 4 |
| New Jersey - 15 | New Hampshire - 4 |
| New Mexico - 5 | North Carolina - 15 |
| New York - 31 | North Dakota - 3 |
| Oregon - 7 | Ohio - 20 |
| Pennsylvania - 21 | Oklahoma - 7 |
| Rhode Island - 4 | South Carolina - 8 |
| Vermont - 3 | South Dakota - 3 |
| Washington - 11 | Tennessee - 11 |
| Wisconsin - 10 | Texas - 34 |
| Utah - 5 | |
| Virginia - 13 | |
| West Virginia - 5 | |
| Wyoming - 3 |
Of course, a 269-269 split would be thrown into the House, with each state delegation getting one vote. THAT would be cool.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Joint Canvassing
First off, my apologies for my two months of not posting. I had run out of analysis and was spent with a thesis. The stories, I thought, were fairly repetitive, so little actually crossed my mind to post during that period. But with the general approaching, I think that it's a good time to get this going.
Semi-regular posting (hopefully 3-4 times per week) will resume as of Thursday; I am traveling until then and am currently writing from a Super 8 Motel in Michigan.
There are a bunch of things in politics that I find absolutely fascinating, and over the next few months, I hope to hit on as many of them as I can. One, though, comes from my training as a history major: I love looking at what is seen as normal in politics and wondering why it is seen as such.
John McCain has alluded to the reputed Kennedy/Goldwater agreement for the '64 election. In a far-fetched fantasy, Barry Goldwater, before winning the GOP nomination in 1964, suggested a "joint canvass" with then-President Kennedy, where the two would campaign in the same places and respond to one another.
This would be a good thing, I think. It would put policy matters at the center of the discussion, forcing the media out of the coverage of the horse race and into more substantive matters (at least a little bit).
Of course, this sort of thing used to happen a lot more than it does now. Lincoln wanted a joint canvass with Douglas in 1858's Illinois Senate race, and the suggestion wasn't that far out of bounds.
Douglas, however, decided against the joint canvass, deciding instead on 7 joint debates. Why? He was the favorite. The odds, as the most powerful senator facing an unknown, were clearly in Douglas' favor. A joint canvass levels the playing field. The two candidates are seen as equals and, ideally, are throwing away their previous advantages and, in some ways, are throwing caution to the wind.
Intrade has the race at 61/39 in favor of Obama winning; Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com has it at 64/36 in favor of Obama. The economy is perceived as bad, with a Republican president at the helm. An unpopular war has been raging for 5 years. This is absolutely a Democratic year, as Jay Cost has written. Additionally, thanks to the grassroots enthusiasm he has generated, Obama can raise money at obscene levels. McCain may well be tied to public financing restrictions that Obama will avoid.
So, Obama has the advantages. If he runs a solid campaign, he will probably win the election. A joint canvass? You're putting the financial advantage aside (think of all the free media coverage dominating the discourse), and, to some extent, the latent 2008 Democratic advantages. Most critically, you're severely rocking the boat with this.
If Obama really is all about a "new style of politics," he would take McCain up on this offer. In the long run, it would be better for the polity and the discourse. But for Obama's chances at winning the presidency, I would stay away from this.
The modern media campaign is now normal. It wasn't always, but in a year where the stars are lining up for Obama, it would be quite unexpected to see him rock the boat that much.
Semi-regular posting (hopefully 3-4 times per week) will resume as of Thursday; I am traveling until then and am currently writing from a Super 8 Motel in Michigan.
There are a bunch of things in politics that I find absolutely fascinating, and over the next few months, I hope to hit on as many of them as I can. One, though, comes from my training as a history major: I love looking at what is seen as normal in politics and wondering why it is seen as such.
John McCain has alluded to the reputed Kennedy/Goldwater agreement for the '64 election. In a far-fetched fantasy, Barry Goldwater, before winning the GOP nomination in 1964, suggested a "joint canvass" with then-President Kennedy, where the two would campaign in the same places and respond to one another.
This would be a good thing, I think. It would put policy matters at the center of the discussion, forcing the media out of the coverage of the horse race and into more substantive matters (at least a little bit).
Of course, this sort of thing used to happen a lot more than it does now. Lincoln wanted a joint canvass with Douglas in 1858's Illinois Senate race, and the suggestion wasn't that far out of bounds.
Douglas, however, decided against the joint canvass, deciding instead on 7 joint debates. Why? He was the favorite. The odds, as the most powerful senator facing an unknown, were clearly in Douglas' favor. A joint canvass levels the playing field. The two candidates are seen as equals and, ideally, are throwing away their previous advantages and, in some ways, are throwing caution to the wind.
Intrade has the race at 61/39 in favor of Obama winning; Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com has it at 64/36 in favor of Obama. The economy is perceived as bad, with a Republican president at the helm. An unpopular war has been raging for 5 years. This is absolutely a Democratic year, as Jay Cost has written. Additionally, thanks to the grassroots enthusiasm he has generated, Obama can raise money at obscene levels. McCain may well be tied to public financing restrictions that Obama will avoid.
So, Obama has the advantages. If he runs a solid campaign, he will probably win the election. A joint canvass? You're putting the financial advantage aside (think of all the free media coverage dominating the discourse), and, to some extent, the latent 2008 Democratic advantages. Most critically, you're severely rocking the boat with this.
If Obama really is all about a "new style of politics," he would take McCain up on this offer. In the long run, it would be better for the polity and the discourse. But for Obama's chances at winning the presidency, I would stay away from this.
The modern media campaign is now normal. It wasn't always, but in a year where the stars are lining up for Obama, it would be quite unexpected to see him rock the boat that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)