Some election thoughts
The revolution will be televised
After a midterm election which featured the largest pick-up of seats by any one party since 1948, most mainstream pundits have focused on the purely political slicing and dicing: is the Tea Party ascendant? What does it mean for 2012? How crazy is Rand Paul?
But elections are also moments to reflect on the foundations of our system of governance, because they illuminate the most fragile elements of our political system.
In no particular order, some TPP-style election ruminations:
- Power Changes Hands Peacefully…Again: this blog often focuses on value-laden questions about such issues as the limits of freedom, the obligations of equality, and the standards of political conduct. We spend less time on how our political process is constituted, but that doesn’t make the topic any less central to real political philosophy. When the balance of power shifts as dramatically as it did on Tuesday, it’s a useful moment to remember that the way we have designed our political system has never once lead to bloody succession. Scholars will debate why, but the results are noteworthy
- The Growing Danger to Democracy?: emboldened by the Citizens United decision last year, undisclosed third-party expenditures reached $300 million during this cycle. Much of this money came from a handful of very wealthy donors. While these political contributions are protected speech, it’s time to wonder whether they will overwhelm the voices of average voters–and what that means for America
- What’s an Opposition to Do?: Representative John Boehner (R-OH) finds himself in an interesting position. The likely Speaker of the House for the new Republican majority faces, on the one hand, a base eager to undo much of the sweeping legislation Democrats passed over the past two years and, on the other, a need to actually address the many problems currently plaguing America. He faces a real question about how to lead his caucus. Should they stand in the way of the President and the Democrats, or is it time to put aside ideology and compromise?
These are just a few things I’m pondering. What about you?
-Sam
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user Rob Boudon.
Has Stewart gone soft?
Comedian interviews president–credentials revoked?
After Jon Stewart’s interview of Barack Obama on last night’s Daily Show (the comedian’s first of a sitting president), New York Times blogger Alessandra Stanley asks, “whether a political satirist loses credibility when hobnobbing with a sitting president.”
One of Stewart’s hallmarks is ability, even zeal, to skewer journalists who not only amuse in their incompetence, but enrage in what Stewart often intimates is a total violation of their own standards. Or, as our own Jake Bronsther put it yesterday in a special on Jon Stewart to AskMen.com:
This media criticism is built into the structure of Stewart’s show, which was set up as a satirical take on programs like The O’Reilly Factor. As a result, Stewart sits above the rest of the commentators, somehow more pure, the grinning mandarin who points out our individual and collective misdeeds. It also helps that he might be the smartest person sitting behind a television news desk today, of either the real or fake variety.
Given the niche Stewart has so effectively carved out as incisive media critic and arbiter, the question is not merely whether interviewing President Obama erodes Stewart’s self-styled image. It’s also one of whether he’s violating the expectations he has set for himself. Has Stewart abandoned a self-imposed obligation to be the Critic-in-Chief of American political culture? Read more
No cheers for austerity?
Welcome to revolution Europe
Ask any youngster–eating vegetables is no fun. Or ask Europeans for that matter. Major European economies have begun to make tough choices to rein in public benefits and curtail government programs in order to reduce their debt burden. Much of the attention has been on Greece, partly because their austerity measures were so severe and partly because the public reaction was not exactly peaceful.
But even some of Europe’s flagship economies are also beginning to take a sober look at the long term. Yesterday England recently announced hundreds of billions in cuts over the coming years and France is seeking to increase the retirement age from 60 to 62 (it’s 65 in the United States, and will rise to 67 in the coming decades).
Much of the French population are less than thrilled with the proposed change, and widespread protests and strikes over the last week have grounded planes, caused fuel shortages and even forced Lady Gaga to cancel a concert.
I’m not interested in whether people have a right to strike, although that question certainly remains a live one. But, to many Americans, the vehemence of the European response feels disproportionate. We don’t have close to the public benefits they will still have after the reforms, many of us say. Read more
Fat stamps?
Can we tell food stamp recipients what to eat?
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City – noted for his interest in public health – has issued a request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow the city to bar the use of food stamps to purchase sugared drinks as a way to combat the city’s soaring obesity rates. The food stamp program (known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) is a cash transfer that reaches about 40 million low-income Americans every month.
Some have already raised eyebrows at the ethical implications that come with determining what food stamp recipients can and can’t eat:
“The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” Mr. Hacker said. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”
[...]
In 2004, the Agriculture Department denied a request by Minnesota to prevent food-stamp recipients from buying junk food. The department said that the plan, which focused on candy and soda, among other foods, was based on questionable merits and would “perpetuate the myth” that food-stamp users made poor shopping decisions.
What’s so odd about these complaints is that they seem to miss the deeper ethical question about the reach of government power. The real question we should be asking is whether governments have a right to tell some segment of the population what they can and can’t eat, and whether we want a government that substitutes its nutritional judgment for our own. Read more
A pledge to (repeal) America
Is the Republican plan really a plan at all?
The House Republican Caucus will unveil its “A Pledge to America” this morning, a governing plan that echoes the “Contract with America” Newt Gingrich (and current minority leader John Boehner) used in 1994 to help sweep Republicans into the House majority. The final version of the pledge is already available, as is a video of the preamble narrated by someone who sounds like the “Frontline” guy.
There are at least two elements of “A Pledge to America” that should interest TPP readers. Read more
I know not for whom I vote
Disavowing Democrats
According to the New York Times, many vulnerable Democratic candidates have been conspicuously quiet about, well, their own party:
Two years after arriving in Washington on a message of hope and change, Democratic candidates are not extolling their party’s accomplishments, but rather distancing themselves from their party’s agenda.
The midterm elections may revolve around a series of big issues, particularly with control of Congress at stake. But a look at the advertising themes and images being employed by Democrats shows all the ways they are trying to personalize their contests and avoid being defined as ideological partners of President Obama’s or as part of the Washington establishment.
(A nifty graphic compiled by the Times lays out a bit of the political advertising strategies employed by the two parties.)
Most people treat how candidates campaign largely as a matter of strategy, rather than a question of right and wrong. It’s what you stand for, people say, not how you stand for it. While some forms of personal attack and slandering have often been treated as out of bounds, many modern campaigns have used all manner of negative attacks–including criticism targeted at an opponent’s personal life.
Yet the hesitancy of some Democratic candidates to even discuss their own party ties raises some troubling questions for representative democracy as a form of government. Read more
Flexible fairness
When good policies expire
This is a perfect example of what you could call “freezing difference.” MSNBC explains:
Following an uproar over a policy it said was designed 30 years ago to achieve racial equality, a school district board in a Mississippi town on Friday scrapped a system of student elections where race determined whether a candidate could run for some class positions, including president.
The policy designated on a rotating basis the race of each position. So, for example, one year the class secretary had to be white, the next year black, and so on. There were four total class officer positions up for grabs. The school dropped the policy this year in response to a parent complaint after a 12-year-old girl was considered ineligible to run for one of the officer positions because of her race.
From where we stand, this feels wrong. The story writes itself: “Precocious black student prevented from running for class office due to her race. School stands by 30-year-old policy.”
But take a look at what the district superintendent said when he revoked the policy, making every officer position equal opportunity: 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
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.
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.
Share us