Inconceivable!
Is fertility a health issue or a lifestyle choice?
This month a health care refom advisory panel will meet to consider whether contraception should be offered free of charge as a form of preventative medicine, the AP reports. Healthcare reform of course poses many questions concerning how medical services are paid for and delivered. But, as the AP notes, social mores are at the heart of this latest question.
Contraception is a controversial tool for preventing pregnancy, with many religious movements banning it outright. At the heart of the argument against free contraception is that the use of contraception is a lifestyle choice, not a health issue. As the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center notes, “there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals.”
All other things equal, should the use of contraception be thought of as a health issue or a lifestyle choice? And should it matter for whether it is provided free as a form of preventative care? Read more
Know your (state’s) rights
The Wall Street Journal ran a piece recently about the current anti-Washington sentiment reviving an old debate over the 17th Amendment. This Amendment, which provides for the direct election of US Senators, has been denounced by some Republicans. A repeal of the law would involve appointing senators by state legislators.
“People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states,” Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah. Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers’ balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.
This raises several interesting questions. First, the idea of “remembering state sovereignty,” or “Senators representing states,” is worth exploring. What exactly does this mean? A state, after all, is not a moral agent that is capable of being represented the same way a person or group of persons is. Perhaps this just means representing the citizens living in that state – but if this is true, why does direct election of senators not provide for this?
Second, we can ask what the status of Federalism and state sovereignty is in modern America. At the time of the Constitution’s writing, it was reasonable to assume that different states had different political and economic values. But geography no longer seems to correlate as strongly with political or economic beliefs, considering how often Americans move and how quick information is disseminated. So, is Federalism an historical artifact, or somehow central to American political values?
Finally, even if Federalism is essentially American in some important way, is there any truth to the Progressive stance that direct election of Senators limit democracy? If so, what should be done about it?
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Marion Doss used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
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.
Fear and loathing redux
Radley Balko at Reason magazine argues that the close association between democratic politics and crime policy results in a vicious cycle of fear-mongering, excessive incarceration, and intergenerational poverty. He cites a Boston Globe article that reveals a tendency for undue and irrational pessimism and fear among the population. I explored the problem of irrational fear in a previous post, where I noted that there is often a gap between realistic and imagined levels of danger. In the case of crime, it is extreme. Although crime has been declining since the mid-1990s, 74% of Americans insist that crime is getting worse.
Balko’s solution to the vicious cycle is to divorce crime policy from the political process. Today, many judges and prosecutors in America are elected officials and as a result have been hijacked by public demands for tough sentencing. In most other countries, these jobs, which are technical in nature, are held by more-or-less impartial civil servants.
In any fair legal system, judges are supposed to be impartial, and so there is an argument for taking direct democracy out of the legal system. But we should be leery of technocracy more generally. There is a danger to having too many degrees of separation between the public and its agents. While public sentiments can certainly hijack policy for the worse, so can interests that have no accountability whatsoever to the public, with the results being systematic corruption and abuse.
In a complex society, we will always have to tread a fine line between technocracy and democracy.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user bitzcelt used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
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
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
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.
You know you’re right
Facts and opinion in a liberal democracy
A recent video produced for the “10:10” campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by ten percent a year for the next ten years, has come under intense criticism. The video begins with an elementary school teacher explaining the 10:10 project to her class, and asking for her students to sign up. All but two students agree, and in response, the teacher presses a little red button that causes the dissenting students to explode in a torrent of blood and gore.
The work of British filmmaker Richard Curtis, the four minute spot has been called a “snuff film” by National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg writes:
This isn’t a joke for the benefit of you and me. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, “Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?” That’s why they’re blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That’s the joke: “Enough with these idiots already.
Goldberg considers this to be part of a larger trend within the environmentalist movement, where opponents are regarded as somehow beneath the debate.
Frustrated with the perceived environmental threat of economic freedom and the inconvenience of political freedom, many environmentalists yearn for shortcuts. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wishes we could learn from China’s one-party system […] NASA scientist James Hansen wants to put corporate CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity. Al Gore compares his opponents to Holocaust deniers and insists that the time for democratic debate is over.
This raises interesting questions about the nature of democratic debate. Environmentalists’ frustration with their opponents, if it exists, is understandable to a degree. The scientific consensus firmly agrees that man-made climate change is happening. And in a debate that is heavily scientific and technical, environmentalists can do little more than cite the experts’ work.
This is similar, for example, to the debate over teaching evolution. Evolution is the central tenet of biology, and to any scientist, a biology course not focused on evolution is simply deficient. Yet, the public debate still goes on. 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.
Share us