The perils of philosophy in public
We’ve long called for philosophical issues to play a larger role in public debate. Well, on Wednesday, recently crowned Kentucky Senate nominee, Rand Paul, got himself into a bit of trouble trying to do just that. Paul was discussing the legitimate role of government in regulating private institutions and ended up suggesting that government shouldn’t be able to stop a restaurant from discriminating against African Americans The Washington Post’s Chris Cilliza concludes that “theoretical arguments are stone cold losers in the context of political campaigns.” Of course, political campaigns are only one aspect of the public debate – philosophy can play a less problematic role in these other domains. And while we don’t think philosophical arguments are necessarily losers in the campaign sphere, they clearly have their perils. So be careful out there campaign managers – philosophy has an important place in public debate; just make sure you know where it will take you.
-Marc
The myth of a “national security” limitation on free speech
Israel and the barring of Noam Chomsky
On Sunday, Noam Chomsky, the American leftist professor, was denied entry by Israel on his way from Jordan to Bir Zeit University in the West Bank to deliver a lecture.
The Chomsky incident comes on the heels of several other recent decisions by the Israeli government to turn away Americans on the basis of their belief. As reported in the New York Times, this includes an editor for a Bethlehem-based paper who left and was barred from re-entry in January; Richard Falk, the former UN weapons inspector, who was told in December he could not enter to investigating human rights in the West Bank because he was hostile to Israel; and controversial scholar Norman Finkelstein who was denied entry last year after visiting Lebanon. Other events within domestic society, including an April decision by a major bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation following protests by Israeli settlers, have raised serious questions about the extent of freedom of speech within Israel. This particular event caused the former head of the left-wing Meretz Party to bemoan that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.” Read more
Too smart for the supreme court?
Last Friday, our own Sam Gill had an op-ed in USAToday challenging the notion that a player could be too smart for the NFL. The same day (coincidence?) in a Daily Beast column, Peter Beinart challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should not be made up entirely of Ivy Leaguers. Beinart claims, “the Supreme Court is not supposed to comprise a cross-section of the American public, or of the American legal profession. It is supposed to constitute an intellectual elite…. There’s nothing wrong with wanting the judge reading the brief—like the radiologist reading the X-ray—to have graduated at the top of her class, not in the middle.” Beinart goes on to respond to the claim that Ivy League graduates will have a monotonous, elite worldview by showing that the Supreme Court justices, though all Ivy League grads, come largely from working-class backgrounds. So, what do you think? Are there too many Ivy Leaguers on the Supreme Court? Would someone from the top of his or her law class at the University of Michigan or the Berkeley really be that different?
-Marc
Miranda rights and wrongs
Attorney General Eric Holder announced this weekend that the Administration will seek to loosen the terrorism exception to Miranda rights law, allowing law enforcement even more flexibility to interrogate terrorism suspects before reading them their Miranda rights. Not surprisingly civil liberties advocates are not happy. So what do you think? Should there be more of an exception for suspected terrorists? Or is the law already flexible enough? How do we balance our desire for security with our belief in civil liberties?
-Marc
Yes, but is she persuasive?
President Obama’s nomination of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court has sparked a debate on the Left, not so much over her lack of experience, but over the perception that she is more conservative than retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is the leading agitator in this movement. A number of liberals have argued in response that the remedy to a 5-4 conservative Court is not a more liberal counterbalance, as Greenwald claims, but someone who can move Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing vote to the liberal side. The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen claims that Kagan has “demonstrated success winning over skeptical conservatives at every stage of her career.” Thus, she is “just what the doctor ordered.” The American Prospect has its own take on whether Kennedy is persuadable, but the more important question here is not whether the tactic will work, but whether the President should be nominating judges for this reason, as opposed to, say, his belief that she be an “impartial guardian of the law.”
-Marc
Should government have prevented the oil spill?
Risk and regulation
Life is chalk full of risk. Most everything we do entails it, to varying degrees. There is risk inherent in using a toaster (it could electrocute me or light my house on fire), walking to work (I hope those drivers are paying attention at this early hour!), and even sleeping (i could roll off the bed and crack my head).
In general, the level of risk in everyday activities is pretty low — things with high probabilities tend to have small consequences while things with high consequences tend to be low probability — so I am happy to accept it. We each make some subconscious decision about how to balance risk and benefit. In the case of using the toaster, walking to work and sleeping, I have judged that the benefits (breakfast, paycheck, and rest) outweigh the inherent risk. But there are obviously some things for which I have made the opposite determination – that the risk outweighs the benefits: take swimming with sharks, for example. Read more
Electoral fun with a british accent
Yesterday’s election in the United Kingdom has created quite a complex political situation. No party won an outright majority. Though the Conservatives won a plurality and made significant gains over their results from the last election, they do not have a clear partner for forming a majority. They are currently in talks with the Liberal Democrats, but the two parties are at odds on many fundamental issues. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is refusing to step down until a new government is formed. And the Queen is studying her constitutional role in a hung Parliament.
A number of challenging normative questions immediately come to mind. What are Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg’s responsibilities to represent his party’s voters in a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour? If he is only able to get certain policy promises does he have a responsibility to ensure that these are the issues his voters care most about? Since the Liberal Democrats represents a broad platform, must Clegg only negotiate with the party most similar to his – Labour? Does Prime Minister Gordon Brown have any moral basis for continuing to lead the government given his party’s major losses at the polls? Should he instead step down immediately and let Cameron serve as Prime Minister until a new government is formed? What role should the Queen play? Technically she is the one who invites someone to form a new government, and traditionally it was the political parties who told her who this would be. But what if the parties cannot decide who has the strongest claim to become prime minister? There are obviously many other normative issues at play. Keep thinking about them as the situation develops.
-Marc
Who is responsible for cleaning up this mess?
A massive oil spill caused by an explosion on and subsequent collapse of an offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening the fragile environment of the Mississippi Delta region. According to federal law, BP — the company leasing the rig — is ultimately responsible for paying the cost of response and cleanup operations. Does that sound right? What about the owner of the rig, Transocean? Why not the U.S. government for allowing drilling so close to shore or for not regulating safety well enough? In the case of industrial accidents, where does moral responsibility fall? Are the companies always responsible? Or might the U.S. government ever shoulder some of the blame?
-Marc
Sometimes its just about the politics
Lindsey Graham and the battle for control of the Senate
Citing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “cynical political” decision to pursue immigration legislation before energy/climate legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sunday withdrew his support for an energy and climate bill that he, along with Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), has long championed.
In his post yesterday, Sam tries to figure out why: Read more
When one bill contains the great and the terrible…
That’s the situation the League of Women Voters is facing with the D.C. Voting Rights Act. According to the Washington Post‘s “Breaking News Blog”, the organization, which has fought for DC to get a vote in Congress for 50 years, is opposing legislation that would do just that because it would severely weaken the District’s gun safety laws. How would you decide how to vote if a bill contained provisions you supported and those you opposed? Do you go with the values you feel more strongly about? Or do you stick with the status quo (by opposing the bill), and hope you get another chance to support the provisions you liked?
-Marc
Share us