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.
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.
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.
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.
Statelessness sucks
George Soros writes at Project Syndicate that the recent expulsion of the Roma from France is tantamount to collective punishment. His outrage is echoed by a French priest who prays for Sarkozy to have a heart attack.
Although every state obviously has a right to protect public order, critics of the expulsion wonder “what harm can a few hundred people do?”
They wonder too how it’s acceptable for an EU country to forcibly relocate EU citizens without due process, especially when all EU citizens are entitled to freedom of movement.
The Roma are the continent’s largest ethnic minority group. They are not native to Europe and are in fact descended from Indians. Their distinct ethnic identity combined with misperceptions has historically made them outcasts everywhere. The Roma presently being deported from France tried to escape dire poverty and discrimination in Romania.
Despite being EU citizens, the French government’s recent treatment of them signals that no state may reliably look out for them.
How should we respond to the problem of stateless people? For Theodor Herzl and the Zionists, the answer was obvious – to reclaim an ancestral homeland and establish a new nation. But the present Arab-Israeli conflict highlights the extraordinary difficulty and moral complexity of such a solution. And no reasonable person could suggest that the Roma try to re-conquer Punjab in northern India.
The solution will have to be the least impossible of impossible alternatives. The European countries should probably make a concerted effort to integrate the Roma and make them full members of their societies.
Not only does the “plight of so many millions of Roma… [make] a mockery of European values” as Soros writes, but the alternative is to allow a moral and social problem of enormous proportions to fester and ultimately truly undermine public order.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user Rivard used under a Creative Commons Attributions License
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.
Democratic ADD
According to James Jay Carafano in today’s New York Post, the press has moved on from the Deepwater Horizon spill—at least, they don’t care about the disaster nearly as much as the locals in the Gulf do.
Carafano’s main project is to criticize the federal response to the spill, on behalf of Americans in the Gulf. But he also notes that people who aren’t still personally affected by the disaster are forgetting about the situation in the Gulf States, or that most people and our news media have a memory problem.
The idea that the citizenry gets apathetic unfortunately quickly with certain issues, like distant disasters and politicians’ records, is not new. It is, nevertheless, important.
Our society is a democratic one. It is the citizens who determine (however indirectly) what decisions are made and what issues need to be decided. If we can only keep our attention focused on each society-spanning problem until another problem arises, how will we resolve them?
Is this democratic ADD one of the reasons we are not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy or republic instead?
TPP’s own Sam Gill has written on a similar topic in a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed. Give it a read.
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user Deepwater Horizon Response.
Safety vs. privacy, resolved today
Should high-crime neighborhoods have a say in police staffing levels?
This week the New York Times featured a program which targets high volume of police attention and effort in a small geographical area, a Brooklyn housing development. This mostly takes the form of stop-and-frisks, designed primarily to reduce the number of guns in the development.
Data shows that the stop-and-frisks are useful in reducing crime within the projects but have not been effective in reducing crime for the precinct as a whole. The legal basis for the program appears a bit tenuous. Police are required to have reasonable suspicion before stopping a citizen. In the city-owned projects, police routinely use violations of housing code as a pretense for stops.
The piece presents residents of the development as conflicted between the increase in public safety and the decrease in privacy.
Should residents be given a role in deciding the nature of police involvement? One could certainly envision a neighborhood referendum putting the question of increased police scrutiny to the test.
(Certainly one could just say that increased police involvement is good in principle but should be conducted in some better way; I’d like to bracket that question for now).
There are certainly benefits to society as a whole to decreasing levels of crime. This seems to be a special case in that the program is ineffective outside the walls of the housing complex, but quite successful inside. The key stakeholders are quite clearly those inside the complex. With that in mind, I’d argue that it does indeed make sense to give communities some decision-making power. The proper balance between safety and privacy is one that local police departments are not likely to get right when working on a block-by-block basis. Given that decision-making must be this granular, it makes sense to offer that power to the communities the police serve rather than to the police themselves.
–John
Image from thomashawk used under a Creative Commons license.
Share us