Current uses of the words "conservative" and "liberal" have nothing to do with their traditional meaning. Well, that is not exactly true. They have, perhaps, too much to do with their traditional meaning given the fact that they seem to mean the same on the surface, but the animating spirit is completely different. Two hundred years ago, liberals believed in moving beyond personal government, in the form of the monarchy, to impersonal government, typically defined as what was then known as republican government. Conservatives sought to use the power of government to maintain the status quo and prop up existing power structures. There was not, however, any disagreement over the nature of man - that he needs restraint - or the proper role of that good government can play.
Over the course of the past one hundred years or so, these definitions were turned on their heads within the American context. Liberals became those who believed in the fundamental goodness of man for whom government could be used to advance the plight of man, and conservatives were those who, in the best spirit of the old Liberals, believed in the original sin of man who needed boundaries and hedges to keep an ordered society, those in government being no different (hence, separation of powers and checks and balances). The conservative commitment to republican values was, at heart, a commitment to the constitutional values that had made the experience of government a successful one, even if inefficient and unwieldy.
Over the past fifteen years, however, a phenomenal and dangerous blurring has occurred. The conservative paradigm has been petrified to the point that government itself is seen as the root of all problems. Rather than a properly-formed government being seen as a barrier against the more destructive inclinations of men, government of any kind is now seen as the barrier to all the good inclinations of men. It's some strange hibrid of the American-liberal vision in the goodness of men and the danger inherent in the original conservative perspective that the government that governs best is the one that rises the boat of the guilded interests. The rallying cry of the day is "No new taxes!"
On the other hand, the liberal paradigm has petrified to believe that government is the source of all goodness and the only savior of humanity. Because people are not to be trusted to conduct their affairs in honorable and virtuous ways, government regulates every possible area of life. Religion is banished from the public square, conviction is seen as the sign of a fanatic, so we are left with the only moral compass available to a society whose only remaining binding institution is the government: a thing must be deemed constitutional before it can be deemed moral. And since the ever-growing government has crowded out all room for virtue and compassion, welfare and social justice must be the business of federal agencies who, ironically, deliver the exact opposite of social security and medicare. It's some strange hibrid of the American-conservative vision in the evil of men and the danger inherent in the original liberal position that the government that governs best is impersonal. The plaintive cry of the day is "If we just spent more..."
I generally fancy myself a Constitutionalist, in an attempt to identify with the values of the eighteenth-century liberal and the twentieth-century conservative. But this week I am a Democrat as the Senate is taking up financial regulatory reform. I have to wonder if the Republican Party has completely lost its mind with its opposition to the severely anemic bill introduced by Senator Dodd. I can only hope that Senator Lincoln's bill will receive enough support for its main provisions to be adopted in any compromise bill the Senate crafts.
Even the sorriest of attempts to put some rules around the derivative trading and overleverage that led the U.S. economy into the worst recession since the 1930's is met with opposition by the Party that is supposed to believe that man requires boundaries and hedges to prevent him from doing his worst. Rather, we see the Republican lack of trust in government extending to functions that once received near unanimous agreement as fundamentally governmental. I see this as somewhat ironic, since the Bush Administration's (apparent) trust in government extended to functions that once received near unanimous agreement as fundamentally off-limits to government.
The world indeed has been turned on its head.
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisanship. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Proposed Amendment: Presidential Question Time
There is an interesting idea at goldwaterinstitute.org to import the Prime Minister Question Time from Britain and adapt it to the federal and state governments. Apparently, a proposed state constitutional amendment is being considered in Arizona to do just that for the Arizona state government.
I like this idea for Congress and the president as well, as it would at least move the politicians past their part-line talking points and pithy sound bites. I applaud President Obama for the bipartisan health care summit he held late last month in an attempt to seek ideas from Republicans on health care reform. Many in the media thought it nothing more than a show on everyone's part, but I thought some very useful and insightful question and dialogue came out of it. If we had more of that sort of give-and-take, I would venture to guess that the walls of partisanship and group-think would start to weaken.
Here is a version of the proposed Arizona amendment adapted for the federal Constitution:
I like this idea for Congress and the president as well, as it would at least move the politicians past their part-line talking points and pithy sound bites. I applaud President Obama for the bipartisan health care summit he held late last month in an attempt to seek ideas from Republicans on health care reform. Many in the media thought it nothing more than a show on everyone's part, but I thought some very useful and insightful question and dialogue came out of it. If we had more of that sort of give-and-take, I would venture to guess that the walls of partisanship and group-think would start to weaken.
Here is a version of the proposed Arizona amendment adapted for the federal Constitution:
On request from the Congress, the president shall appear once every two weeks on the floor of Congress to receive and respond to questions from the members of Congress during periods of regular legislative session. The president shall alternate chambers, appearing on the Senate floor to receive questions from members of the Senate, then appearing two weeks later on the House of Representatives floor to receive questions from the members of the House of Representatives. Each appearance shall be for a minimum of thirty minutes and a maximum of one hour, and the majority and minority party of that chamber of the legislature each shall receive one-half of the question time.
Group-think coming to the Senate?
David Brooks has a helpful article in yesterday's New York Times that explains why getting rid of the filibuster is such a bad idea and why turning the Senate into a smaller version of the House of Representatives will not serve anyone well in the long run. The Democrats need to tred very carefully with the process of how they work to pass the health care reform legislation. The means are certainly not justified by the ends, and I promise the Republicans will be back in power one day. And they will take the novel approaches the Democrats develop and use today and perfect them into the new modus operandi.
In the United States, leaders in the House of Representatives have done an effective job in getting their members to think in group, not person-to-person, terms. Members usually vote as party blocs. Individuals have very little power. That’s why representatives are often subtle and smart as individuals, but crude and partisan as a collective. The social psychology of the House is a clan psychology, not an interpersonal psychology.
The Senate, on the other hand, has historically been home to more person-to-person thinking. This is because the Senate is smaller and because of Senate rules. Until recently, the Senate leaders couldn’t just ram things through on party-line votes. Because a simple majority did not rule, and because one senator had the ability to bring the whole body to a halt, senators had an incentive, every day, to develop alliances and relationships with people in the other party.
For decades, individual senators have resisted their leaders’ attempts to run the Senate like the House and destroy these relationships and these humane customs. A few years ago, when Republican leaders tried to pass judicial nominations on party-line votes, rank-and-file members like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton spoke out forcefully against rule by simple majority.
But power trumps principle. In nearly every arena of political life, group relationships have replaced person-to-person relationships. The tempo of the Senate is now set by partisan lunches every Tuesday, whereas the body almost never meets for conversation as a whole. The Senate is now in the process of using reconciliation — rule by simple majority — to try to pass health care.
Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency. That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support. Now we have pure reconciliation mixed with pure partisanship.
Friday, January 15, 2010
On the filibuster - Democrats suddenly find religion
It has recently become fashionable among Democrats and those sympathetic to their programs to decry the supermajority it takes to pass any legislation in the Senate. The new mantra seems to be that it is time to end the use of the filibuster, which requires a vote of 60 senators to stop debate on a particular question or motion before the chamber. The frustration over the legislative process's slow and prodding progress towards a health care reform bill is the straw that broke the camel's back.
This call does my heart good, as this blog has been calling for the reform of the filibuster since 2007. Representative of recent calls is that of reputable law professor Jack Balkin.
But I have to wonder where these principled objections to the filibuster were when the Democrats were filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees back in 2004 and 2005? Dr. Balkin seems to even praise the use of the filibuster by Democrats to stop the imperial designs of Evil Republicans[TM] in a May 2005 blog post:
POSTSCRIPT:
Rick Pildes has a helpful history of the filibuster at Balkinization as well.
This call does my heart good, as this blog has been calling for the reform of the filibuster since 2007. Representative of recent calls is that of reputable law professor Jack Balkin.
But I have to wonder where these principled objections to the filibuster were when the Democrats were filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees back in 2004 and 2005? Dr. Balkin seems to even praise the use of the filibuster by Democrats to stop the imperial designs of Evil Republicans[TM] in a May 2005 blog post:
Getting rid of the filibuster is a key device for achieving this goal. Although the current fight is over judicial nominations, if the Republicans are successful, there will probably be considerable pressure to eliminate the filibuster in other areas so that the Republicans can govern with a freer hand on important issues like taxes, tort reform, and Social Security. If this remaining tool of opposition can be eliminated, the Republicans can proceed to promote their policy goals with far less resistance.
...
In fact, eliminating the filibuster is about consolidating Presidential power-- the power of President Bush as leader of the Republican Party-- as much as it is about Republican power,...
The second goal behind ending the filibuster is to smooth the way for Bush to appoint very conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the lower federal courts. This is a method of constitutional change that Sanford Levinson and I have called "partisan entrenchment," in which a determined President stocks the life-tenured federal courts with ideological allies.
...
Put in terms of my colleague Bruce Ackerman's theory of constitutional change, movement Republicans seek a "constitutional moment" that will usher in a new regime of conservative constitutionalism that will shape and dominate constitutional thought for generations to come. Eliminating the judicial filibuster is a key step in making that dream a reality.
POSTSCRIPT:
Rick Pildes has a helpful history of the filibuster at Balkinization as well.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Whence the compromise?
The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy this past week has elicited much commentary on the apparent passing of the old political skill of Compromise. The standard refrain is something like this:
Professor Sandy Levinson even go on to blame this state of affairs on our "undemocratic Constitution," pointing out statistics like the six senators on the Senate Finance Committee negotiating health care reform (an illustrative irony in itself - many who have lameted the loss of compromise have been the same ones impatiently demanding that the Senate Finance Committee drop its negotiations and "just approve a plan") represent a mere 2.77% of the U.S. population. This charge, however, seems to miss the point. The Senate was never meant to represent the American population as a whole, rather Senators represent their individual states. Besides this, the Constitution has governed the United States for well over 200 years and the Senate has been considered "the world's most deliberative body" for much of that time, admired by many around the world as one of the most august legislative chambers in history.
So if we have indeed lost the art of compromise in our politics and assuming our Constitution is not to blame (indeed, we have argued here that the Constitution engenders compromise), what has caused our supposed decline in bipartisan bills facilitated by compromise? It seems to me that this decline correlates with the rise of conservatives in the Republican Party during and following the time of President Reagan and the disappearance of that strange politician truly of a bygone era, the Southern Democrat. The Republican Party has become much more monolithic, dominated completely by the conservative movement, while the Democrats have been all over the map between moderate to liberal (or progressive to use the current label of choice).
Nevertheless, the Republican and Democratic Parties were both largely dominated by moderate and liberal politicians prior to the last generation's rise of conservatives. President Nixon, who fought for universal health care and Employer Mandates and instituted wage and price controls, was hardly a conservative by today's standards (or any era's standards, for that matter). President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, one of the most liberal justices in the history of the Court. Conservatives had no voice in the government prior to Reagan's election to the presidency, so they were effectively locked out of the debate and ignored.
So when one side is completely sidelined, how is the resulting federal legislation the result of compromise? One side (liberals) and moderates agreeing among themselves might be compromise, but not to the degree that these fellows pining for the good old days would like to believe. For all their acrimony, true compromises were struck in the 1990's between President Clinton and the Republican Congress time and time again: the 1996 welfare reform law, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the balanced budgets in 1997 and onward, to name a few.
The process of compromise is always ugly when one is in the middle of it, and it never looks like compromise (remember the cries of deadlock and obstructionism when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans forced a shut down of the federal government in 1995?). But given the time for the political process to work itself out, the end result is ALWAYS better than a partisan wish-list crammed down the collective throats of the electorate. Voters might swallow the bitter pill of such a legislative maneuver, but the majority party will be short-lived in their majority status. Americans have longer memories than Talking Heads give them credit for.
Senator Kennedy was from an old era of Senate politics, an era that engendered bipartisan deals and encouraged the art of compromise, dominated by moderate senators from both parties. Over the past twenty to thirty years, radicals from both parties have increasingly dominated the ranks of the Senate, leaving moderates to fill only about 10% of the chamber. As a result, the Opposition party seeks only to delay and obstruct and the Majority party pushes through its legislation on party-line votes.
Professor Sandy Levinson even go on to blame this state of affairs on our "undemocratic Constitution," pointing out statistics like the six senators on the Senate Finance Committee negotiating health care reform (an illustrative irony in itself - many who have lameted the loss of compromise have been the same ones impatiently demanding that the Senate Finance Committee drop its negotiations and "just approve a plan") represent a mere 2.77% of the U.S. population. This charge, however, seems to miss the point. The Senate was never meant to represent the American population as a whole, rather Senators represent their individual states. Besides this, the Constitution has governed the United States for well over 200 years and the Senate has been considered "the world's most deliberative body" for much of that time, admired by many around the world as one of the most august legislative chambers in history.
So if we have indeed lost the art of compromise in our politics and assuming our Constitution is not to blame (indeed, we have argued here that the Constitution engenders compromise), what has caused our supposed decline in bipartisan bills facilitated by compromise? It seems to me that this decline correlates with the rise of conservatives in the Republican Party during and following the time of President Reagan and the disappearance of that strange politician truly of a bygone era, the Southern Democrat. The Republican Party has become much more monolithic, dominated completely by the conservative movement, while the Democrats have been all over the map between moderate to liberal (or progressive to use the current label of choice).
Nevertheless, the Republican and Democratic Parties were both largely dominated by moderate and liberal politicians prior to the last generation's rise of conservatives. President Nixon, who fought for universal health care and Employer Mandates and instituted wage and price controls, was hardly a conservative by today's standards (or any era's standards, for that matter). President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, one of the most liberal justices in the history of the Court. Conservatives had no voice in the government prior to Reagan's election to the presidency, so they were effectively locked out of the debate and ignored.
So when one side is completely sidelined, how is the resulting federal legislation the result of compromise? One side (liberals) and moderates agreeing among themselves might be compromise, but not to the degree that these fellows pining for the good old days would like to believe. For all their acrimony, true compromises were struck in the 1990's between President Clinton and the Republican Congress time and time again: the 1996 welfare reform law, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the balanced budgets in 1997 and onward, to name a few.
The process of compromise is always ugly when one is in the middle of it, and it never looks like compromise (remember the cries of deadlock and obstructionism when Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans forced a shut down of the federal government in 1995?). But given the time for the political process to work itself out, the end result is ALWAYS better than a partisan wish-list crammed down the collective throats of the electorate. Voters might swallow the bitter pill of such a legislative maneuver, but the majority party will be short-lived in their majority status. Americans have longer memories than Talking Heads give them credit for.
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Truth is so Bright I Gotta Wear Shades
Truth and Politics. Normally the truth is black or white. I'm beginning to wonder if politics is the art of not stating the obvious. The current economic crisis provides for an easy example. Economists are saying that nationalizing the banks is a valid remedy for a failing banking system. The Secretary of the Treasury is avoiding mentioning the term even off the record. If asked point blank, it is a good bet that he would not admit that it is a potential action worth exploring. Here is where the political truth comes in. If you asked him why he won't discuss it, he will actively avoid admitting that the political cost is too high. Not giving the opposition a chance to score points then becomes the elephant in the room.
Everyone knows why we don't talk about the solution openly, making it ever so difficult to face our problems, hog-tying ourselves for the sake of political strategy.
Everyone knows why we don't talk about the solution openly, making it ever so difficult to face our problems, hog-tying ourselves for the sake of political strategy.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Irrational Rationales
It's always been frustrating to me to hear supporters of a U.S. Administration dismiss criticism with nothing more than a perfunctory evaluation. I've become convinced that it is very easy for a leader's supporters to consider counter-arguments as somehow attacks on the President himself and therefore a sign of disloyalty. Paul Graham discusses how identity influences a debate and I'm inclined to agree with him.
What the fan-boys, which I'm wondering whether may be an appropriate term for the most extreme devotees, of an administration should understand is there are plenty of people who need to see the administration debate an issue; when they come out with a position and defend it as if it was perfect those people feel like they are being dictated too, cut off from the idea evaluation process. Do they expect the public to praise the announced policy as in, "Yea! We don't have to think anymore, the President will save us!"? There is something to be said for public debate, the collaboration towards a better idea.
What the fan-boys, which I'm wondering whether may be an appropriate term for the most extreme devotees, of an administration should understand is there are plenty of people who need to see the administration debate an issue; when they come out with a position and defend it as if it was perfect those people feel like they are being dictated too, cut off from the idea evaluation process. Do they expect the public to praise the announced policy as in, "Yea! We don't have to think anymore, the President will save us!"? There is something to be said for public debate, the collaboration towards a better idea.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bush's Final Report Card
Bush Wins and Losses
Stem Cell Research - LIntelligence plane over China incident - W
9/11 - W
Afganistan - W
WMD - L
Iraq - L
The Surge - W
Mission Accomplished banner - L
Plamegate - L
No pardon for 'Scooter' Libby - W
Abu Graib(sp) - L
Guantanamo Bay - L
Torture/waterboarding - L
Supreme Court Nominees - no decision
Katrina - L
Head of FEMA nomination - L
Stimulus package 1 - L
Stimulus package 2 - L
SEC oversight - L
Financial industry oversight - L
Darth Chaney - L
unitary executive theory - L
VP part of the legislative branch - L
Politization of science policy - L
Firing of 8 Federal Procecutors - L
Keeping Rumsfeld too long - L
'Axis of Evil' - L
North Korea - W
Iran - L
Canning Kyoto - no decision
“Enhanced interrogation of terrorists.” - L
Rebuilding presidential authority - L
Mid-east policy - L
No Child Left Behind - L
Medicare prescription drug benefits - L
Better relations with east Asian democracies - W
Compasionate Conservatism - L
Global Gag Rule - L
Terri Shiavo - L
Extraordinary Renditions - L
Relations with Russia - L
Relations with Europe - L
Relations with South America - L
Genocide in Africa - L
I'll add more to this as I think of them.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The Great GOP Waffle
The GOP wants to have their cake and eat it too. This summer, the GOP employed the filibuster in the Senate to forestall a vote on a medicare bill. The Republicans hailed a win in Georgia because it prevents the Democrats from having a filibuster-proof majority. Sarah Palin said,
Her flub about shaping bad legislation aside, it's obvious the GOP values the power that the filibuster grants to a minority party.
If you have some syrup, now is the time to get it out. The waffle that needs addressed is that this is the same party which was considering changing the Senate rules to essentially remove the filibuster from the hands of the minority party.
I would like to hear Craig's thoughts on this matter. Are they now implicitly admitting that the Nuclear Option was a bad idea? Normally when a politician changes his position they are accused of 'waffling' so why haven't I heard those charges? I admit that I don't read that extensively so take the previous question at face value and not as me trying to push any buttons.
Craig?
"This election is that important, and I know come tomorrow night, Georgians are going to speak, and Georgia's going to speak with a loud and clear voice. We want to make sure we have at least 41 Republicans in the United States Senate to make sure that we shape bad[sic] legislation, or kill bad legislation."
Her flub about shaping bad legislation aside, it's obvious the GOP values the power that the filibuster grants to a minority party.
If you have some syrup, now is the time to get it out. The waffle that needs addressed is that this is the same party which was considering changing the Senate rules to essentially remove the filibuster from the hands of the minority party.
I would like to hear Craig's thoughts on this matter. Are they now implicitly admitting that the Nuclear Option was a bad idea? Normally when a politician changes his position they are accused of 'waffling' so why haven't I heard those charges? I admit that I don't read that extensively so take the previous question at face value and not as me trying to push any buttons.
Craig?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
End judicial filibusters
Brian Tamanaha over at Balkinization has dutifully reminded conservatives of their deeply-held belief that the filibuster should be ended for judicial nominations and that every judicial nominee submitted by the President deserves an up-or-down vote. Rather than tongue-in-cheek tit-for-tat, perhaps respected constitutional scholars such as Professor Tamanaha could follow the call of the president-elect and advance real solutions that both sides can come together and embrace. This blog forwarded a solution to the abuse of the filibuster back in July of 2007: make the filibuster a filibuster again.
Novel, I know. But I think such a scheme just might work!
Novel, I know. But I think such a scheme just might work!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Our Forefathers Forbearance
Craig sent me a blog post, linked in the title of this post, and pointed out that he agreed with the first comment. After reading both the article and the comment, I wanted to save my thoughts here and show how they apply to governance.
I think the commenter is describing a valid point but one that does not mesh with the intent of the original poster's reason for making the statement in question. When Pursiful says, "because there is no knock-down argument for the existence of God, then by definition people are going to disagree about God." he is speaking about forbearance. The quoted statement is just a way of reminding the reader that what constitutes "proof" to one person may not be accepted by another.
The commenter goes on to say
First, I do not think that Mr. Pursiful is stating that Christ's resurrection is in question, rather he is admitting that what he himself accepts as fact can be held as 'not-fact' by someone else. Secondly, the commenter is falling prey to the same logical fallacy that the article covers.
Let me use an example. I believe that the Earth is round but my brother believes that it is flat. I use a Foucault Pendulum to prove Earth's rotates and thus is round. My brother refuses to accept my proof and instead of trying to convince him further I tell him that he's free to believe the world is flat. In doing so, have I turned my back on my own beliefs? Can it be said that I no longer believe in the Earth as Sphere? No, I do not. He being my brother, I take him as he is rather than harangue him for not agreeing with my beliefs. He's not stupid or evil, he just doesn't believe in something that I do.
An even better example may be the small group of people who deny the Holocaust which is described by the Wikipedia article thusly:
Even if you have perfect evidence to 'prove' God's existence, there would still be those who choose no to believe it. I'm tempted to go into a discussion on epistemology but I doubt the commenter would appreciate a discussion about how we know what we do, the distinction between truth and belief and the limitations of knowledge.
The point is that there are people who will refuse to believe in things easily proven with ample evidence available and instead of the common choices he describes, "we assume that those who disagree with us are either ignorant or evil" he offers a third choice, forbearance.
With regard to governance, the gentlemen who gathered to contemplate a new type of Republic had to deal with this subject head on. How to build a strong society that doesn't let the small divisions between individuals form the cancer that drives men to accumulate power so that they can use the force of the State to control what others are allowed to believe. The heart of the First Amendment is forbearance, the willingness to allow people to believe in things that others do not. The two main political parties engage in battle along this very fault-line every election cycle. Two parties who see the same evidence but reach different conclusions.
Forbearance.
I think the commenter is describing a valid point but one that does not mesh with the intent of the original poster's reason for making the statement in question. When Pursiful says, "because there is no knock-down argument for the existence of God, then by definition people are going to disagree about God." he is speaking about forbearance. The quoted statement is just a way of reminding the reader that what constitutes "proof" to one person may not be accepted by another.
The commenter goes on to say
It's one thing if an atheist speaks as if *the atheist* doesn't find it to be conclusive proof of anything because he thinks it is make-believe, but it's another entirely for a Christian to speak as if *the Christian* doesn't find it to be a knock-down argument for God's existence either because of his own unbelief or someone else's.
First, I do not think that Mr. Pursiful is stating that Christ's resurrection is in question, rather he is admitting that what he himself accepts as fact can be held as 'not-fact' by someone else. Secondly, the commenter is falling prey to the same logical fallacy that the article covers.
Let me use an example. I believe that the Earth is round but my brother believes that it is flat. I use a Foucault Pendulum to prove Earth's rotates and thus is round. My brother refuses to accept my proof and instead of trying to convince him further I tell him that he's free to believe the world is flat. In doing so, have I turned my back on my own beliefs? Can it be said that I no longer believe in the Earth as Sphere? No, I do not. He being my brother, I take him as he is rather than harangue him for not agreeing with my beliefs. He's not stupid or evil, he just doesn't believe in something that I do.
An even better example may be the small group of people who deny the Holocaust which is described by the Wikipedia article thusly:
Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry. The prevailing — and indeed virtually unanimous — consensus of mainstream scholars is that the evidence given by survivors, eyewitnesses, and contemporary historical accounts is overwhelming; that this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubtthat the Holocaust occurred; and that it occurred as these sources say it occurred.
Even if you have perfect evidence to 'prove' God's existence, there would still be those who choose no to believe it. I'm tempted to go into a discussion on epistemology but I doubt the commenter would appreciate a discussion about how we know what we do, the distinction between truth and belief and the limitations of knowledge.
The point is that there are people who will refuse to believe in things easily proven with ample evidence available and instead of the common choices he describes, "we assume that those who disagree with us are either ignorant or evil" he offers a third choice, forbearance.
With regard to governance, the gentlemen who gathered to contemplate a new type of Republic had to deal with this subject head on. How to build a strong society that doesn't let the small divisions between individuals form the cancer that drives men to accumulate power so that they can use the force of the State to control what others are allowed to believe. The heart of the First Amendment is forbearance, the willingness to allow people to believe in things that others do not. The two main political parties engage in battle along this very fault-line every election cycle. Two parties who see the same evidence but reach different conclusions.
Forbearance.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Math of Politics
I'm beginning to think that people judge politicians by how far away they are from them in generally held beliefs. Think of the political spectrum as a number line with zero as the 'middle'. Which side is the positive side depends on the individual. Let's say 'Bob' in this example considers himself to be a moderate conservative. He agrees with a few traditionally liberal principles but with the conservatives for vast majority of the rest. So Bob might define his comfort zone from -1 to 5 (using a scale of -10 to 10). Since Bob identifies with the conservatives, the liberal portion of the scale is on the negative side. This gives three groups of people relative to Bob. If Bob feels that he has no beliefs in common with a candidate, he won't consider them at all. If there is some overlap then Bob will listen and consider. If a candidate's perceived beliefs fall entirely within the area that Bob defines as his own, then Bob will more then likely be an ardent supporter, feeling like he has found a candidate that understands him. The challenge is to keep from being blinded by the situation and keeping a pragmatic understanding of how people who don't share Bob's beliefs will react to the candidate. It also makes it easy to understand why candidates are always trying to include as widespread a group of beliefs as they can.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The greatest deliberative body?
The Senate was established by the Founding Fathers as the chamber of Congress that would carefully deliberate on the business of the Republic, providing balance to the more brash "people's" House. In that vein, the Senate has prided itself on being "the greatest deliberative body in the world." The filibuster and, beginning in the twentieth century, the cloture vote have long been used in the Senate to ensure legislation was not ram-rodded through, to ensure everyone's voice was heard and considered.
Over the course of the twentieth century, however, these tools have been "reshaped" in the name of efficiency, civility, and streamlining debate that they remain in name only. Once upon a time, a senator or group of senators would have really had to talk continuously to stall a bill. The committed minority could prevent closure of debate so long as they kept talking, but once they stopped (whether they stopped due to compromise with the majority, or by sheer exhaustion), the business of the Senate could resume. Now all that is needed is the threat of a filibuster for a small minority to stall a bill they don't like. The so-called "gentleman's filibuster" seeks to retain the goal of the old-time filibuster while removing all the pain and unpleasantness. After all, why should anyone be inconvenienced by all-night sessions or risk their health by talking themselves to exhaustion?
In order to prevent the minority from completely abusing the filibuster, the Senate in the 1960's lowered the bar on the number of senators needed to cut off debate to three-fifths (sixty of one-hundred). But even this is too high of a requirement for ordinary business. The filibuster and cloture vote are now used by minority parties (rarely does the majority have 60 or more Senate seats) to kill legislation it doesn't like. The intent was to slow legislation, not allow the minority to thwart the will of the majority.
The majority party colludes with the minority by withdrawing legislation that fails the cloture vote. This is right in line with, and indeed governed by, our "fast-food" culture - if we can't get something right now, we don't think it's worth working towards. Senators worry that the public will see them as wasting time if they are camped on one issue for weeks on end, but sometimes this is exactly what is called for. For compromise to work, it needs time, discomfort and close proximity to form and solidify. If a committed minority wants to stall legislation, they should have every right in the Senate to do so for as long as they can. But this means they are actively working - by talking through continuous, all-day, all-night, and all-weekend sessions - until they are no longer willing or able to do so. Then the Senate holds an up-or-down vote on the question at hand.
I was sympathetic to the Republicans' frustration over the Democrats' use of filibusters to stall the consideration of President Bush's judicial nominees back in 2005. But if the nuclear option was good then, why not now that the Democrats are the majority? But cloture votes and nuclear options would not be necessary if the Senate would simply make a filibuster a filibuster. If debate was allowed to take as long as it needed to play itself out, the Senate would once again be the world's greatest deliberative body.
Over the course of the twentieth century, however, these tools have been "reshaped" in the name of efficiency, civility, and streamlining debate that they remain in name only. Once upon a time, a senator or group of senators would have really had to talk continuously to stall a bill. The committed minority could prevent closure of debate so long as they kept talking, but once they stopped (whether they stopped due to compromise with the majority, or by sheer exhaustion), the business of the Senate could resume. Now all that is needed is the threat of a filibuster for a small minority to stall a bill they don't like. The so-called "gentleman's filibuster" seeks to retain the goal of the old-time filibuster while removing all the pain and unpleasantness. After all, why should anyone be inconvenienced by all-night sessions or risk their health by talking themselves to exhaustion?
In order to prevent the minority from completely abusing the filibuster, the Senate in the 1960's lowered the bar on the number of senators needed to cut off debate to three-fifths (sixty of one-hundred). But even this is too high of a requirement for ordinary business. The filibuster and cloture vote are now used by minority parties (rarely does the majority have 60 or more Senate seats) to kill legislation it doesn't like. The intent was to slow legislation, not allow the minority to thwart the will of the majority.
The majority party colludes with the minority by withdrawing legislation that fails the cloture vote. This is right in line with, and indeed governed by, our "fast-food" culture - if we can't get something right now, we don't think it's worth working towards. Senators worry that the public will see them as wasting time if they are camped on one issue for weeks on end, but sometimes this is exactly what is called for. For compromise to work, it needs time, discomfort and close proximity to form and solidify. If a committed minority wants to stall legislation, they should have every right in the Senate to do so for as long as they can. But this means they are actively working - by talking through continuous, all-day, all-night, and all-weekend sessions - until they are no longer willing or able to do so. Then the Senate holds an up-or-down vote on the question at hand.
I was sympathetic to the Republicans' frustration over the Democrats' use of filibusters to stall the consideration of President Bush's judicial nominees back in 2005. But if the nuclear option was good then, why not now that the Democrats are the majority? But cloture votes and nuclear options would not be necessary if the Senate would simply make a filibuster a filibuster. If debate was allowed to take as long as it needed to play itself out, the Senate would once again be the world's greatest deliberative body.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What Price Loyalty?
Politics has always been a game. The majority of changes have been the players and the stakes. For over two centuries there have been two teams of lasting consequence. In a place where power and money are readily available and in large quantities, it is almost inevitable that there would come a time when somebody breaks the rules so blatantly that they deserve to have their head served up on a platter. What is amazing is that the guilty party still will have defenders regardless of the crime. The common cry is "It's a political witch-hunt!". While that may be true, let's examine those cases where the person is actually deserving of getting kicked out of town.
The most recent example is Attorney General Gonzales. His claim is that visiting John Ashcroft at his bedside in the hospital was not for the reason the then Acting AG Comey claim it was. Regardless of the actual reason, Gonzales is on shaky ground to claim any reason to visit Ashcroft, since Ashcroft no longer held the authority of the office of AG. Any action or decision taken based upon Ashcroft's approval would have been null and void as a matter of law, otherwise why bother with the formality of signing over the AG's powers to Comey?
Where am I going with this? What amazes me the most is when loyalty trumps common sense. With the innumerable blunders made by AG Gonzales, I start to ask why more Republicans have not withdrawn their support of him. I understand the desire to be loyal to one of their own party, but loyalty taken to that extreme can easily become blinders that keep the wearer from seeing the sunshine of the truth.
A politician who is willing to make excuses for the ineptitude of others -- Gonzales just being a current example -- has put politics before doing what is right.
What each political party could use is someone who is considered one of their own but who can still intercede in matters before members become so galvanized in their partisan trenches that they cease to see the damage they do to the party as a whole.
Professional sports leagues have commissioners that are hired by the owners to look out for the integrity of the game. In doing so, he can confront bad behavior, however legal it may be, with an eye for the broader prospective of the entire organization. He is entrusted make the unpleasant decisions that he can make because he doesn't represent an individual player or club. It is the highest expression of teamwork when teams themselves submit to a higher authority in the interest of the game itself.
When will the Republicans and Democrats realize that they need a Commissioner?
The most recent example is Attorney General Gonzales. His claim is that visiting John Ashcroft at his bedside in the hospital was not for the reason the then Acting AG Comey claim it was. Regardless of the actual reason, Gonzales is on shaky ground to claim any reason to visit Ashcroft, since Ashcroft no longer held the authority of the office of AG. Any action or decision taken based upon Ashcroft's approval would have been null and void as a matter of law, otherwise why bother with the formality of signing over the AG's powers to Comey?
Where am I going with this? What amazes me the most is when loyalty trumps common sense. With the innumerable blunders made by AG Gonzales, I start to ask why more Republicans have not withdrawn their support of him. I understand the desire to be loyal to one of their own party, but loyalty taken to that extreme can easily become blinders that keep the wearer from seeing the sunshine of the truth.
A politician who is willing to make excuses for the ineptitude of others -- Gonzales just being a current example -- has put politics before doing what is right.
What each political party could use is someone who is considered one of their own but who can still intercede in matters before members become so galvanized in their partisan trenches that they cease to see the damage they do to the party as a whole.
Professional sports leagues have commissioners that are hired by the owners to look out for the integrity of the game. In doing so, he can confront bad behavior, however legal it may be, with an eye for the broader prospective of the entire organization. He is entrusted make the unpleasant decisions that he can make because he doesn't represent an individual player or club. It is the highest expression of teamwork when teams themselves submit to a higher authority in the interest of the game itself.
When will the Republicans and Democrats realize that they need a Commissioner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
