All those yesterdays
Philosophy, the Constitution, and respect for the Founding Fathers
According to a report by the Associated Press, Republicans have proposed forty-two amendments to the Constitution during the current Congress, compared to twenty-seven such proposals by the Democrats (one third of which are part of a package from a single member).
This is surprising because many Republicans won their seats as strict defenders of the Constitution’s “plain language.” One of these politicians, Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, explains away the discrepancy.
He said the Founding Fathers never imagined the size and scope of today’s federal government and that he’s simply resurrecting their vision by trying to amend it. “It’s not picking and choosing,” he said. “We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does.”
Apparently, politicians like Rep. Broun appeal to the intentions of the Founding Fathers as their political philosophy, not the Constitution itself. Variations of this “Founding Father-ism” exist across the political spectrum, yet there are several problems with this position. Read more
Obama: read this blog
Political consultants ask Obama to do more philosophizing
A lengthy piece in today’s Politico quotes a wide range of political consultants, former high-level White House advisers, and pollsters who all reiterate the same shortcoming about President Obama:
By declining to speak clearly and often about his larger philosophy — and insisting that his actions are guided not by ideology but a results-oriented “pragmatism” — he has bred confusion and disappointment among his allies, and left his agenda and motives vulnerable to distortion by his enemies.
Obama’s predicament highlights an important role for political philosophy that even we here at The Public Philosopher tend to discount: it’s practical capacity to add clarity of vision to the messy business of governing. Read more
Statelessness sucks
George Soros writes at Project Syndicate that the recent expulsion of the Roma from France is tantamount to collective punishment. His outrage is echoed by a French priest who prays for Sarkozy to have a heart attack.
Although every state obviously has a right to protect public order, critics of the expulsion wonder “what harm can a few hundred people do?”
They wonder too how it’s acceptable for an EU country to forcibly relocate EU citizens without due process, especially when all EU citizens are entitled to freedom of movement.
The Roma are the continent’s largest ethnic minority group. They are not native to Europe and are in fact descended from Indians. Their distinct ethnic identity combined with misperceptions has historically made them outcasts everywhere. The Roma presently being deported from France tried to escape dire poverty and discrimination in Romania.
Despite being EU citizens, the French government’s recent treatment of them signals that no state may reliably look out for them.
How should we respond to the problem of stateless people? For Theodor Herzl and the Zionists, the answer was obvious – to reclaim an ancestral homeland and establish a new nation. But the present Arab-Israeli conflict highlights the extraordinary difficulty and moral complexity of such a solution. And no reasonable person could suggest that the Roma try to re-conquer Punjab in northern India.
The solution will have to be the least impossible of impossible alternatives. The European countries should probably make a concerted effort to integrate the Roma and make them full members of their societies.
Not only does the “plight of so many millions of Roma… [make] a mockery of European values” as Soros writes, but the alternative is to allow a moral and social problem of enormous proportions to fester and ultimately truly undermine public order.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user Rivard used under a Creative Commons Attributions License
It’s the economy, stupid
Equality butts heads with freedom
Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith write at Politico that a new debate about first principles and the role of government has replaced the social issues at stake during the “culture wars” of the last three decades.
This dispute over first principles is deeply entwined with questions of national identity and the appropriate role of the government in the economy.
On one extreme is a minimalist state, in which the government is responsible for little more than upholding the rule of law and providing for a common defense. On the other extreme is a socialist state in which the government manages all facets of economic activity.
Neither extreme applies to any industrialized country today. Rather, the modern world is populated by welfare states of various stripes.
Americans are stupid
You may not know this, but, earlier this year, President Obama signed into law the most sweeping overhaul of health care since the 1965 creation of Medicare. It’s the largest piece of social legislation in at least half a century.
I know, I know, I shouldn’t be treating you as if you have your head buried in the sand. Except you do.
According to a recently leaked presentation based on polling and focus groups about the law encourages Democrats to “Let voters know the healthcare [sic] law passed!”
They don’t know? Really?
This raises a depressing question: what’s the point of governing in the Republic of Ignorance?
Most major theories of government make some basic assumptions about human rationality. Some say people are perfectly rational beings capable of deciding their own good. Others take a more moderate stance, suggesting that people are often shaped by their environment and circumstances.
But few if any theories account for complete and total inability to notice life-changing events.
My tone may be humorous, but my humors are melancholy (the bodily ones, anyway).
It’s time to make a choice. Must we radically improve the capacity of our population to understand the basic knowledge it takes to function as a democracy? Or should we radically rethink democracy itself?
In either case, it may be time to do something radical.
-Sam
Image of a lemming used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user kgleditsch.
TPP Weekly Rewind
Monday, August 16 – Friday, August 20
TPP Week-In-Review
- On Monday, Luke analyzed another of Ross Douhat’s writings, in which the New York Times columnist defended against criticisms of his recent anti-gay marriage article; in light of President Obama’s entrance into the Ground Zero mosque debate, TPP intern Jonathan explored the distinction between moral and legal permissibility; TPP intern Charles indicated interesting questions and helpful resources concerning the mosque at Ground Zero; and TPP intern Han criticized some tea party groups’ opposition to net neutrality, but offered them an alternative strategy on their behalf
- On Tuesday, Sam disparaged the news media for their handling of the Ground Zero mosque subject, and claimed that they are failing to encourage the proper sort of discussion
- On Wednesday, John found fault with a recent article on online-education by Anya Kamenetz, and explored the potential impact of technology on educational institutions; and Sam shared a fun series of quizzes created by social psychologists to evaluate your moral character
- On Thursday, TPP intern Charles condemned teachers’ unions as overpowered, and suggested that they need transparency and increased accountability for their members
In Others’ Words
- Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias both wrote on the subject of Charles’ post on Thursday: Los Angeles public school teachers, and teachers’ unions
- Much like Sam in his post on Tuesday, Dwight Furrow over at Philosophy On The Mesa explained ‘Why Our Political Discourse Sucks’
- Clive Hamilton discussed moderation in Australian national politics for The Australian
- Douglas Vicenzi at Liberals Are Cool claimed that ‘limited government’ is an incoherent political philosophy
- For Intellectual Conservative, Bill Wavering examined the status of today’s progressives in politics, and observed that they were trying to redefine ‘prosperity’ much as they redefined ‘deviancy’ in the 1990’s
- The Legal Theory Blog continues its Legal Theory Lexicon series by defining and explaining ‘utilitarianism’
- Michael Vass at Vass Political Blog saw a little bit of the American spirit in a John Wayne film, and criticized contemporary America for being un-American
- According to Space Politics, some Floridian politicians have been proving some political stereotypes false
- Mike Gibson at Let a Thousand Nations Bloom provided a list of some of the most underrated texts in political philosophy
Free speech for the dumb?
Laura Schlessinger recently found herself embroiled in controversy after using racial epithets several times on her talk radio show. This incident has led Dr. Schlessinger to abandon her program, proclaiming “”I want my First Amendment rights back, which I can’t have on radio without the threat of attack on my advertisers and stations.”
Over at NPR, Linda Holmes argues that being economically pressured for her speech is not a violation of her First Amendment rights. As Holmes draws the distinction, the Constitution guarantees that speech will be “free from government interference,” not “free from consequences.”
The article brings up not only questions of free speech, but also questions about the respect owed to other ideals cherished in a liberal democracy.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Ian Hayhurst used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Educating the public
Pay, accountability and teachers’ unions
The Los Angeles Times has a new series “exploring the effectiveness of public schools and individual teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District.” The study, which relies on standardized test scores rather than more comprehensive metrics, is obviously far from perfect. But, as the LA Times explains, this is surely better than nothing when “…across the country, parents have no access to objective information about teacher effectiveness…” Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, has professed support for the LA Times releasing the data.
However, the program has provoked hostility from the Los Angeles and national teachers unions, who claim that the study unfairly scapegoats teachers, many of whom are in poor districts and face unenviable classroom conditions.
A fun tool
A group of social psychologists have built a fun platform to support their research. Visit YourMorals.org to test your beliefs, values, aversions, and other things that play into your morals, choices, and preferences.
Do you care more or less about fairness than the average person? Are you punitive? Do you fear death?
There are a bunch of quizzes with real-time responses. None take particularly long.
-Sam
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user richardmasoner.
Sorry Harvard, I got into TED!
What is the future of elite education, and what are the stakes for equality?
Anya Kamenetz’s article, alluringly subtitled “How TED Became the New Harvard,” makes the argument that the elite conference/video sharing site has all the attributes of the next generation of elite education: tightly curated lectures from globally recognized leaders, distributed widely for free, discussed widely in facilitated local groups.
The appeal is obvious. By making lectures open to all, TED facilitates anyone in the world consuming elite content regardless of economic circumstance. By inviting only the very best-known to give lectures, TED ensures that most of their content is, if not fantastic, at least prestigious.
What’s curiously absent from Kamenetz’s article is any discussion of the credentialing function served by universities. The world in which only students of the most elite universities would have physical access to information is clearly over. However, as long as companies, graduate schools, and elite nonprofits continue to offer better opportunities to Stanford grads than Samford grads, elite education will remain secure. Exposure to ideas is in no way co-equal with exposure to opportunity.
Share us