Who are you, Israel?
The Israeli cabinet has approved a motion requiring new citizens to declare their loyalty to a “Jewish and democratic state.” The controversial amendment to the citizenship law has been denounced as discriminatory by some.
[…]Arab Knesset member Hanin Zoabi said that Israel is “discriminative in its policies and laws against all who are not Zionists.” Zoabi went on to say the law “not only discriminates between Jews and non Jews, it also discriminates between Zionist Jews and non Zionists Jews.”
Another Arab Knesset member Ahmed Tibi, from the Ra’am-Ta’al party, criticized the move as well, saying that “the values of Jewish and Democratic cannot be in the same definition because democracy is the equality of all the citizens.”
On the other hand, some writers see the law as a modest acknowledgement of that fact that Israel really is a Jewish state, a result of the self-determination of the Jewish people.
The goal of these laws is to maintain these states’ unique national identities. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a nation-state without a single dominant culture.
What else unifies human beings, provides them with identity and purpose, gives them a sense of belonging? How else can they better give expression to universalistic values such as the fight against world poverty if not through the particularistic framework of the nation state?
I think that the idea of a Jewish state is not necessarily anti-democratic, but there surely is some tension with the Western conception of a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy chooses some shared set of civic values as the framework upon which to build a state – the particularistic cultural or religious values (such as Judaism, or Zionism) are not to be enshrined within the government.
Of course, this is not to say Israel is wrong in this law, only that such a conception of Israel is no longer compatible with the liberal pluralism of the United States and other countries. Israel can be conceived of in a communitarian light, where the unique social and historical factors of the country are the foundations to the moral and political values. And this might be fine – communitarian nations may still be democratic, and if any modern country comes close to the communitarian ideal, Israel must be a prime candidate.
-Han
Photo by flickr user maxnathans used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Ballad of an obese man
Liberalism, free choice, and Happy Meals
It has been reported that the city of San Francisco is considering an ordinance that would ban toys in kids meals unless the meals contain fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories. While the proposed ban applies to all restaurants, it is targeted specifically at McDonald’s and their infamous Happy Meals.
There is little doubt that childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States, and that the government has an interest in fighting it. Furthermore, drawing on contemporary liberal theory, I think it is pretty easy to justify at least some laws aimed at regulating public health. However, it is far less clear how a law as harsh and direct as banning Happy Meals can be justified. Read more
Don’t worry (about the Constitution)
Over at The National Review, Jonah Goldberg criticizes the “creepy logic of many liberals today,” who believe legislators should not worry about the constitutionality of their laws during legislation, instead deferring such judgments to the courts. This is an interesting question, but let us not exaggerate its importance. Writes Goldberg:
Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone? How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law? Yet, according to this creepy logic, there’s no reason for congressmen to pass, obey, or even consider the supreme law of the land. Reimpose slavery? Sure! Let’s see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!
This is a horribly hyperbolic straw man against which Golberg is arguing. The Constitution is not the only reason legislators should vote against monarchy and racism – obvious moral or political reasons are sufficient. Deferring judgments of constitutionality to the courts would not open the floodgates to insane legislation.
That being said, the article is still a good read overall and examines some interesting questions worth thinking about.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Photophiend used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Police and thieves
The rise of China and America’s military responsibility
A piece in The Atlantic reports on a joint US/Japan rehearsal to defend Japan from a possible Chinese invasion. According to the article, while there is no immediate threat of any Chinese invasion, there is no doubt that China is a rising power that one day will challenge American supremacy.
The question isn’t will China rise, it’s what happens when it does. If we simply let current trends continue, it’s entirely foreseeable that China could cajole, persuade, or bully the rest of East Asia under its influence. The U.S. can handle Chinese competition, but a unified East Asia could undermine the U.S. in any number of ways. […] Another risk of inaction could be regional war. As China expresses more dominance over its neighbors, if regional diplomatic institutions remain too weak to ensure peaceful conflict resolution, it’s possible that China could come to blows with states such as Thailand or, yes, Japan.
This is an argument for a more aggressive foreign policy in an era when many are calling for cuts to the defense budget and dismantling of the American “empire.”
Moral arguments for scaling back American power overseas tend to rely a “live and let live” type of analogy. It is arrogant and often disastrous for Americans to impose our will upon disparate nations and peoples, some might contend – let each family live according to their own rules without the fear of the American fist.
There is certainly some truth to this argument, but I think it is overly simplistic. Even if America withholds its own power, nations may still fear the power of other militaries, or perhaps equally important, individual persons may fear the power of their own governments. Read more
Should the song remain the same?
Writing for Time, Adam Cohen criticizes Supreme Court Justice Atonin Scalia for his opinion that the Constitution does not bar sex discrimination. In the piece, Cohen criticizes “originalism,” a judicial philosophy subscribed to by Scalia, which interprets the Constitution strictly on its plain language, as intended by the writers. Arguing for more liberal judicial philosophies, Cohen writes:
And the fact that we have a very different country now from the days of the Founding Fathers is why Justice Scalia is on the wrong side of this debate. The drafters could have written the Constitution as a list of specific rules and said, “That’s all, folks!” Instead, they wrote a document full of broadly written guarantees: “due process,” “freedom of speech” and yes, “equal protection.” As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained almost a century ago, the Constitution’s framers created an “organism” that was meant to grow — and to be interpreted “in the light of our whole national experience,” not based on “what was said a hundred years ago.”
God Save the Queen (or President?)
Politics, religion, and “public reason”
Writing for The Washington Post, Damon Linker proposes a norm of questioning politicians about their religious beliefs.
Every religion is radically particular, with its own distinctive beliefs about God, human history and the world. These are specific, concrete claims — about the status of the religious community in relation to other groups and to the nation as a whole, about the character of political and divine authority, about the place of prophecy in religious and political life, about the scope of human knowledge, about the providential role of God in human history, and about the moral and legal status of sex. Depending on where believers come down on such issues, their faith may or may not clash with the requirements of democratic politics.
This is an interesting point I will not tackle directly. Instead, I want to examine a related question: if candidates are asked these questions, how should they respond? Or put another way, how can a religious candidate fail to pass this proposed religious test? Read more
Worlds apart
An Op-Ed in The New York Times contrasts China’s efforts to combat global warming and create a “green” economy with America’s current failures in that area. Because China is an economically modern nation with an undemocratic regime, such a piece leads naturally into some interesting questions about American style democracy and its efficacy.
First:
There is really no debate about climate change in China,” said Peggy Liu, chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, a nonprofit group working to accelerate the greening of China. “China’s leaders are mostly engineers and scientists, so they don’t waste time questioning scientific data.” The push for green in China, she added, “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.
Presumably, America’s government has substantially less scientists and engineers because such experts cannot compete with lawyers and businessmen when it comes to campaigning and politicking. Moreover, such experts often have an “elitist” sheen on them, making them unelectable in the modern political climate. Oftentimes, the election of the politicians who are “like us” is seen as a positive consequence of democracy, but perhaps it can also have a dark underbelly.
Second:
China is changing from the factory of the world to the clean-tech laboratory of the world,” said Liu. “It has the unique ability to pit low-cost capital with large-scale experiments to find models that work.” China has designated and invested in pilot cities for electric vehicles, smart grids, LED lighting, rural biomass and low-carbon communities. “They’re able to quickly throw spaghetti on the wall to see what clean-tech models stick, and then have the political will to scale them quickly across the country,” Liu added. “This allows China to create jobs and learn quickly.
The idea is that because of China’s authoritarian nature, large-scale projects that require much effort and sacrifice can be put into effect with political ease. In a democracy, where politicians rely on public sentiment, such projects that will make a substantial part of the population unhappy are difficult to undertake. This is again seen as a positive consequence of a democratic system – but sometimes it can also engender inertia and resistance to necessary change.
When thinking about these two questions, we should ask whether solving these problems requires changing the democratic system or the American political culture – or maybe both. Alternatively, perhaps these are problems inherent with democracy and can’t be solved without sacrificing liberty and political equality.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user futureatlas.com used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Stone cold crazy
The media and reporting on “insane” ideas
In a Washington Post op-ed Michael Gerson lamented the amount of attention Rev. Terry Jones received for his plan to burn Qurans in commemoration of 9/11. While he casts his net wide, Gerson has specific criticisms of the media.
Nearly 100 journalists stood sweltering outside the Dove World Outreach Center, waiting on developments from a man whom his daughter described as having “gone mad.” At one point, a reporter yelled to Jones, “Are you just toying with us to get attention?” — the most blindingly obvious question in recent journalism. Another yelled: “You’re just using us! We should all leave!” Fearing they might miss something, no one left.
Gerson’s obvious assertion is that Jones and his actions are insane, and the media has a responsibility not to report crazy ideas. Is he right? Read more
Bullet the blue sky revisited
A response to Luke’s criticisms
On Tuesday, Luke criticized my defense of targeted drone attacks in the Middle East. In my response to a piece by Ron Rosenbaum, I argued that killing targets that do not pose immediate threats does not violate the “proportionality” criteria of Just War Theory, the established canon that sets out the morality of combat.
Relying on an analogy to preemptively targeting criminals who plan to kill you, I contended that combatants were part of a lethal endeavor persisting through time, making them liable to be killed even when they are currently not doing anything. Says Luke:
In Han’s hypothetical though, the enemy is easily identifiable, the imminent threat is obvious, and there is no risk of serious collateral damage. Rosenbaum’s point, is that in actuality, none of these conditions are necessarily satisfied.
Well no: Rosenbaum’s point was that “proportionality requires that the use of lethal force be justified by the imminence and danger of the threat.” And my point was that under a traditional interpretation of Just War Theory this is simply not true. Read more
Career of evil?
A continent’s past crimes and present guilt
A piece in The National Review commends an essay by Parisian intellectual Pascal Bruckner that diagnoses a type of European “self-hatred.” Europe apparently views its own history as a series of crimes for which it must repent. Bruckner thinks this guilt is responsible for the continent’s “decline.”
Do Europeans have reason to be remorseful? While denying that guilt can be transmitted from generation to generation — “As there is no hereditary transmission of victim status, so there is no transmission of oppressor status” — Bruckner acknowledges that European history is pockmarked with crimes: slavery, feudal oppression, colonialism, fascism, and Communism.
On one hand, I agree that there is no hereditary transmission of moral guilt – the son is not responsible for the sins of the father. However, there is a certain sense in which a feeling of guilt for a society’s past crimes can be both important and helpful. Read more
Share us