Blinded by the light
Feeding the national dialogue
“The dialogue is impoverished.” This lament is heard across the political spectrum, echoing between the margins of opinion pages and muttered by graying professors in an air of resignation. It’s the reason this website was created. It’s a statement we all seem to agree on, and one thing we are all trying to fix. This makes it all the more regrettable when an attempt at the solution only adds to the problem.
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Professor Peter Berkowitz begins well enough: liberal commentators have been dismissive in their views of the Tea Party movement, and this is wrong. I agree completely with this statement – there are many powerful (and perhaps ultimately correct) reasons to believe in the principles of personal liberty and limited government. These reasons constitute philosophical arguments, and they’re arguments that opponents of the Tea Party should engage with in good faith, clear logic, and intellectual honesty.
Berkowitz, unfortunately, believes the debate should lie elsewhere. Read more
Would you like a melting pot or a salad bowl?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says that multiculturalism has “utterly failed” amidst growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany. In the Netherlands, anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders was recently acquitted of discrimination and hate speech. Both of these mark serious departures from what was formerly the European consensus on multiculturalism. Given that immigration is both necessary and inevitable in the modern world, how should a country deal with immigrants from radically different cultures?
There are two widely regarded approaches to cultural pluralism. The prevailing European approach consists of treating immigrant populations as distinct subcultures, with few efforts made to integrate them into the broader society. Originally, this idea was in part tied to an expectation that most of these migrants were to be temporary migrant workers only. The idea that cultural integration need not accompany immigration has persisted even though it has become clear that millions of (mostly Muslim) immigrants are in Europe to stay. Although dressed in the benign language of “multiculturalism,” it is effectively a policy of exclusion.
The other approach is the “melting pot” that is usually attributed to the United States. In a melting pot, disparate ingredients blend together, creating something new that is (hopefully) greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, immigration in the United States has been anything but smooth. Successive waves of immigrants faced tremendous hostility. But by and large immigrant populations assimilated within the space of a few generations, gradually assuming full participation in society and escaping the confines of ethnic ghettos. The same has not happened in Europe, with tragic consequences.
There are certainly merits to cultural diversity. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, a diversity of viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas is necessary to inform human flourishing. But diversity is a means and not an end in its own right. This is a crucial point that, until recently, the European approach to immigration has overlooked.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user SpreePix – Berlin used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Two strands of originalism
Yesterday Han highlighted the differences between two versions of constitutional originalism. On the one side, are those like Justice Clarence Thomas who contend that fidelity to the constitution requires “rolling back the welfare state, repealing regulations, and perhaps even putting an end to progressive taxation.” In contrast, Justice Antonin Scalia adapts a more pragmatic approach, arguing that “upending post-1937 case law and reversing settled principles would prove extremely disruptive, both in the courts and society at large.”
Scalia’s position is, in many respects, intuitively appealing. Such a drastic shift in constitutional interpretation would no doubt be “disruptive” to institutions and the lives of citizens. But, “this faint-hearted originalism” is also problematic in that it introduces a subjectivity that his theory prides itself on avoiding.
By focusing on the original meaning of the constitution, originalists seek to prevent judges from basing their decision on personal political beliefs and values. For example, the question of whether the death penalty is unconstitutional for minors depends solely on the common understanding of cruel unusual punishment at the time the constitution was ratified, not any personal feelings about capital punishment.
But, if Scalia admits that sometimes “settled principles” should be respected, than he has to make subjective choices about when originalism should be applied. Certainly rolling back the welfare state would be disruptive to a society, but so to would overturning Roe v. Wade. There is no objective criterion for deciding when past precedent should be respected and when it can be ignored.
Perhaps Scalia is right that it would be too costly to remain faithful to originalism in all cases, but such a concession also undermines part of what makes the doctrine of originalism appealing in the first place.
-Luke
Image by Flickr user stephen.makser under a Creative Commons Attribution License
I am shocked and appalled
Fear and loathing in law and politics
Risk-perception expert David Ropeik writes at Project Syndicate that nuclear energy remains controversial in Germany in the wake of Chancellor Merkel’s decision to extend the operating lives of the country’s nuclear plans. A 2006 BBC poll finds that in France some 56% of the public opposes nuclear energy, even though 75% of the country’s electricity comes from it. Apparently it is not always possible for people to be acclimated to things they are just afraid of at a gut level.
According to Ropeik, things that are undetectable, capable of causing great pain, man-made, and associated with distrusted persons tend to amplify fear to an irrational degree. Nuclear power certainly fits the bill. So do drugs and guns (and maybe the internet). These same characteristics can provoke revulsion as well. Ask anyone about organ markets and the likely reaction will be disgust. Psychologists Yoel Inbar and David Pizarro write that revulsion clearly influences moral, social, and legal judgments. But should fear and revulsion have any place in the formation of public policy? Read more
Bring it on back?
A piece from Newsweek explores (and criticizes) tea party veneration for the Constitution. What I found most interesting is a distinction between two types of “originalism” in Constitutional interpretation.
While conservatives generally prefer the second approach, many disagree over how it should be implemented—including the Supreme Court’s most committed originalists, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas sympathizes with a radical version of originalism known as the Constitution in Exile. In his view, the Supreme Court of the 1930s unwisely discarded the 19th-century’s strict judicial limits on Federal power, and the only way to resurrect the “original” Constitution—and regain our unalienable rights—is by rolling back the welfare state, repealing regulations, and perhaps even putting an end to progressive taxation. In contrast, Scalia is willing to respect precedent—even though it sometimes departs from his understanding of the Constitution’s original meaning. His caution reflects a simple reality: that upending post-1937 case law and reversing settled principles would prove extremely disruptive, both in the courts and society at large.
The piece goes on to criticize the Tea Party’s “Constitution in Exile” beliefs. My own distaste for Constitution and history worship has been well documented on this site, but I wonder if this distinction makes any difference in the final analysis. After all, if the Constitution really is in exile, maybe there is an argument responsible citizens should try to bring it back.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user bsryan used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
TPP Weekly Rewind
Monday, October 11 – Friday, October 15
TPP Week-In-Review
- On Monday, Han reviewed Israel’s decision to require new citizens to declare loyalty to a “Jewish and democratic state,” and argued that Israel cannot call itself pluralistic
- On Tuesday, Han examined dogmatism’s effect on democratic deliberation in light of a recent video for the “10:10” campaign, and Charles considered the deeper implications of whether or not people should be allowed to hang their laundry out to dry
- On Wednesday, Jake spoke out against the unfortunate influence and use of money in elections, and suggested we consider banning political TV ads
- On Thursday, Han reported on the possibility for cyclic third-party neglect, and pointed us to a specific case in the California gubernatorial race, and Charles linked us to some interesting information on Icelandic culture before explaining would be required to improve our culture
In Others’ Words
- William Grimes reported on the death of famous moral philosopher Philippa Foot for the New York Times
- Steve McCann called President Obama a “liar and demagogue” at American Thinker
- According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, local Virginia politicians warn of the onset of socialism in America
- USA Today’s Faith & Reason blog recounted Philippa Foot’s famous ‘Trolley Problem’, and shared some tributes to Foot
- Charles Barclay reviewed Amartya Sen’s latest book on social justice for The Morung Express
- Leiter Reports shared the results of his ‘most significant moral philosophers of the 20th-century’ poll
- Musalman Times explained the Islamic influences on John Locke
- BBC’s Will & Testament blog shared a list of news articles concerning religion and ethics from this week
Sign up to get the Rewind in your inbox every Friday
It’s a woman’s world –and much more- in Iceland
The BBC reports that the World Economic Forum has found Iceland to be the country with the greatest parity between the genders. Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at Iceland’s fertility rates to see if gender equality came at the expense of large families. It does not. In fact, according to John Carlin at The Guardian, Iceland simultaneously has Europe’s highest birth, divorce, and female employment rates.
This would probably be a recipe for social disaster in most of the rest of the world. But Iceland has negligible levels of crime, strong family cohesion, and high levels of both subjective happiness and living standards. Is there something we can learn from the Icelandic experience?
The Guardian article gushes with enthusiasm for the Icelandic way. A taboo-free and open-minded culture allows unconventional family arrangements to thrive. The Icelandic approach to relationships, marriage and family is casual and eminently pragmatic. Instead of leading to distress, poverty and broken families, high rates of birth, divorce, and female employment accompany strong, though patchwork, families and hardy children.
Cultures are complicated. They evolve organically over the course of centuries and are sustained under highly specific circumstances. Most fundamentally, to live like Icelanders, people would have to amend time-cherished beliefs about marriage and family. They might also have to reconsider the role of the state in supporting motherhood.
There are certainly things to be said for living “free of cant and prejudice and taboo.” But to overcome basic notions of family values is no simple matter. Unfortunately for those of us who might consider moving, the language is notoriously difficult.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user Gunna used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Party with the animals
Earlier this week in California, a Green Party gubernatorial candidate was arrested for attempting to enter a debate she was not invited to. Candidates were invited based on their showing in the polls, but the candidate, Laura Wells, thinks the polls are biased. From her blog:
The polls are a fraud against the voters. I received a letter that congratulated me on my primary win and invited me to the debate, if I received 10% support among California likely voters. They didn’t tell me what the survey question was. If it were, “Do you want debates with only the Republican and Democratic candidates?” a huge majority of voters, especially this year, would say, “No!” But a couple of my supporters were surveyed and they told me the survey question: they were asked whether they preferred Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman. Not even other. And then when the pollsters report the results, they still didn’t say other, they say undecided. As if the only choices were Pepsi and Coke, not something we might like that’s healthy, like crystal clear water, or juice, smoothies or red wine!
In addition, she complains about the media:
We hear all the time about how much money the candidates are spending, but you know what? Give my campaign and our Green ideas the same no-charge media coverage that Meg and Jerry get, and it wouldn’t matter how much money my campaign has.
Her point seems to be that we don’t think third parties have a chance, so we ignore them. But this very thought tends to make us act in such a way that hurts third party chances. In a country where many essential election-related activities, such as reporting, debates, and polls, are handled by non-government organizations (such as the media, or the parties themselves), such a vicious cycle of third party neglect is certainly a possibility.
How to solve such a problem, if it actually exists, and if it’s worth solving, is another issue.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user dominicanuniversityofcalifornia used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
How to buy an election
What does it mean that it’s possible?
With the November elections looming, campaign donations are heating up. Sharron Angle, Republican Senatorial candidate for Nevada, received $14 million in the last quarter alone, to give one example. The topic of money in politics always raises the worry that a politician will “buy an election,” or that the richer candidate will win by virtue of the size of his war chest. But how can someone “buy” a free and fair election where people aren’t bribed to vote for a candidate?
Well, it costs money to get people’s attention (e.g. to buy television ads). And the more attention a candidate can afford, the more time he will have to explain why he’s the best person for the job. This makes sense to a degree, certainly at the edges, where one candidate has 100 times more money and 100 times more opportunities to present his arguments, or where one candidate doesn’t have enough money to even communicate his core views effectively.
But what does it mean that a candidate has a huge advantage when he has only 2 times as much money? It such circumstances, let’s assume that the poorer candidate can still afford to present his most important policy proposals, personality, political and personal values, and personal affiliations, and that there is a stark contrast between the two candidates. That’s what really matters; and shouldn’t that be enough? It clearly isn’t.
This means that, in many cases, democratic citizens are not strong or engaged enough deliberators to withstand unimportant, trivial arguments and attacks. Because beyond that core pitch, that’s what’s going on for the most part.
Clotheslined!
Should people be allowed to hang their laundry out to dry?
The BBC has an amusing perspective on a trend in the United States toward foregoing the use of mechanical driers in favor of drying clothes on the line. Outdoor clothesline drying is prohibited by many landlords and community associations on the basis that it that detracts from property values. Advocates of clothesline drying argue that it is less costly, friendlier to the environment, and has therapeutic benefits as well.
There are a couple of possible approaches to this issue. One approach is a consequentialist one, wherein we are faced with the costs and benefits preserving the property values and well-being of neighbors on the one hand and protecting the environment as well as peoples’ enjoyment of their own property on the other.
Some economists have tried to address problems of “social cost,” namely costs that people impose upon others as secondary consequences of their actions. But such analyses are only reasonable when we can make precise and commensurable measurements of the costs and benefits involved. How do we compare environmental degradation per ton of carbon emissions to property value loss, or the enjoyment and therapeutic value of hanging laundry? Many of these costs and benefits are subjective and vary wildly on a personal basis. Read more
Share us