Interesting:
"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.
That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.
Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams."
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Mustard of Glory: Endgame
Who gets it?
For new readers, we've got a horse race on this blog to name the GOP Presidential nominee. History of the contest, here and here. As it just so happens, John and I placed the exact same bet on Romney, so we've got a tie.
Who will possess the all-important Mustard of Glory? We need some kind of secondary contest to determine a winner. One idea I had was taking turns naming VP candidates, and hopefully Romney will pick one of them. That's a little unwieldy though. We'd have to go several rounds.
Another idea is to stage some sort of silly contest (pin the tail on the donkey, or pie eating or something) during my annual Labor Day BBQ, which John attends.
But I thought I'd open this up for suggestions and comments. John, what do you think?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Future of Conservativism And America
I've written several blogs over the past year that have covered the topic of "Today's GOP". I'll try not to retread ground that I've covered before.
I was reading this article by Jonathan Chait (left leaning writer/blogger). It's subject deals with how GOP and Democrat's presidential campaigns will frame the economic debate this fall, and the strengths and weaknesses of both. I doubt this was his intended effect, but the article left be feeling very depressed. Here's the reason why:
I believe that this statement is true. The Republican strategy has been successful in reframing the debate further right. And while I believe that Obama's probable counter-strategy of showing himself as a centrist probably does have the virtue of being true (if you take politics as a whole for the last 20 years into account), I'm not so sure it's going to work. Maybe for him the in general election, by not too wide of a margin. But probably not for Democrats in Congress.
If that is indeed how it plays out this November, what does it mean for politics? It means that while there's no guarantee that you'll win every election, your party has a better chance of sustaining power if they:
The life of every politician is a mix of governing and planting the seeds for the next reelection cycle. Hopefully more of the former than the latter. But if you have a base group of supporters, even if it's a minority, you can use this strategy to keep enough of the poorly informed middle of society to keep yourself in power, with little to no effort made at actually governing.
Governing requires some level of cooperation and compromise, if you want to get things done. But keeping public perception skewed off center lets you appear to be attempting governance, when really that's not the case at all. This is really bad.
I doubt that the Democrats could attempt such a strategy. Radical leftists are too few; the coalition of the Democratic party is spread too thin. But it appears to be fitting the Republicans like a glove. While that's good for party politicians, it's certainly bad for the country. We need practical decisions, and practical solutions. This strategy grinds government to a halt.
If you need evidence, look to the attempts by Congress to pass budget reform. GOP politicians fear being ousted by Tea Party activists if they make concessions. So, as a result, they'll only vote for budget cuts any measure must include tax cuts. Democrats are willing to give in for some of those ideas, but they want all options on the table, including raising taxes on the rich. But since Republicans refuse under any circumstances to raise taxes, the effort is essentially dead.*
Assigning Blame
It's my belief that the political climate as a whole is responsible for allowing this to happen. So in a sense, none of us are responsible and all of us are. To be more specific, I believe it's the commonly accepted notion that all political arguments boil down to "he said, she said" bickering, with both sides being equally culpable for the sad state of Congress.
In other words, cynicism. This is being fueled by a cynical (I might even say, post-modern) attitude to truth in politics. "All politicians are cheats and liars", "The media is too liberal", all of that contributes to the idea (perhaps subconscious) that truth is never a relevant factor in modern politics. Or that, to determine the truth you take the left and right wing positions, and find a median between the two. Sure, that's an easy way to appear moderate, but it's not a good way of getting at the truth.
Positions and dogma of The Left and The Right are both completely arbatrary points in a vast political plane. They aren't fixed cornerstones; in fact they change all the time. It's easy to forget that.
Each election, the country alternates back and forth between these two options presented to us, but we hopefully choose between them based on facts. Either the economy is doing better, or it's getting worse. Tax cuts either help that or hurt it. That's not an endorsement or rejection of ideology - it's just truth. It makes no sense, and does no good to insist that the media treat both positions with kid-gloves when they either work or don't. But that's exactly what's going on. Both sides are presented as equally valid, because the most serious media outlets are afraid of being of labeled as "biased". That is not not the right way to go.
I know that to right-leaning ears, I'm sounding biased myself. I'll freely admit that both parties, at various times in the past, have manipulated and distorted facts. Absolutely true. But before, it was something that they could be called out for and exposed. Now, you can just deny, deny, deny and create your own proprietary version of reality. I'm sorry, but honestly what I'm seeing right now is the Right deliberately exploiting this cynical attitude to the truth in order to move the goal-posts in their own favor. And this does nobody any good. Certainly not the country, and not conservative policy either. **
** I've been gathering notes for the past couple of months for a blog on MY definition of conservativism. What it is in essence, what I'd like to see it return to. I don't know when I'm going to start writing it, but I'm going to try to make it my big project for this year (what with the election). I'm thinking of preceding it by two polemics. One against libertarianism, describing the flaws in that ideology. Another listing the classic complaints against modern liberalism, and the necessity of a conservative alterative. I'm not 100% sure that I'll do the polemics, or when I'll release them. The main blog I'll probably aim for in the summer or early fall.
I was reading this article by Jonathan Chait (left leaning writer/blogger). It's subject deals with how GOP and Democrat's presidential campaigns will frame the economic debate this fall, and the strengths and weaknesses of both. I doubt this was his intended effect, but the article left be feeling very depressed. Here's the reason why:
"The Republican strategy has real strengths. The party’s sheer bloody-minded refusal to compromise, and its devotion to ever more radical policy agendas, has helped it to shift the terms of the debate steadily rightward. Even keeping tax rates at Clinton-era levels is now a position too left-wing for Democrats to advocate."
I believe that this statement is true. The Republican strategy has been successful in reframing the debate further right. And while I believe that Obama's probable counter-strategy of showing himself as a centrist probably does have the virtue of being true (if you take politics as a whole for the last 20 years into account), I'm not so sure it's going to work. Maybe for him the in general election, by not too wide of a margin. But probably not for Democrats in Congress.
If that is indeed how it plays out this November, what does it mean for politics? It means that while there's no guarantee that you'll win every election, your party has a better chance of sustaining power if they:
- Entrench deeply on ideology.
- Refuse to compromise on policy.
- Hold your opposition in public contempt.
- Accuse your opposition of being radicals, regardless of the policy proposals on the table.
- Consistently lie about what is being said, and what the facts of the matter actually are.
- Never acknowledge or apologize for any of the above.
The life of every politician is a mix of governing and planting the seeds for the next reelection cycle. Hopefully more of the former than the latter. But if you have a base group of supporters, even if it's a minority, you can use this strategy to keep enough of the poorly informed middle of society to keep yourself in power, with little to no effort made at actually governing.
Governing requires some level of cooperation and compromise, if you want to get things done. But keeping public perception skewed off center lets you appear to be attempting governance, when really that's not the case at all. This is really bad.
I doubt that the Democrats could attempt such a strategy. Radical leftists are too few; the coalition of the Democratic party is spread too thin. But it appears to be fitting the Republicans like a glove. While that's good for party politicians, it's certainly bad for the country. We need practical decisions, and practical solutions. This strategy grinds government to a halt.
If you need evidence, look to the attempts by Congress to pass budget reform. GOP politicians fear being ousted by Tea Party activists if they make concessions. So, as a result, they'll only vote for budget cuts any measure must include tax cuts. Democrats are willing to give in for some of those ideas, but they want all options on the table, including raising taxes on the rich. But since Republicans refuse under any circumstances to raise taxes, the effort is essentially dead.*
Assigning Blame
It's my belief that the political climate as a whole is responsible for allowing this to happen. So in a sense, none of us are responsible and all of us are. To be more specific, I believe it's the commonly accepted notion that all political arguments boil down to "he said, she said" bickering, with both sides being equally culpable for the sad state of Congress.
In other words, cynicism. This is being fueled by a cynical (I might even say, post-modern) attitude to truth in politics. "All politicians are cheats and liars", "The media is too liberal", all of that contributes to the idea (perhaps subconscious) that truth is never a relevant factor in modern politics. Or that, to determine the truth you take the left and right wing positions, and find a median between the two. Sure, that's an easy way to appear moderate, but it's not a good way of getting at the truth.
Positions and dogma of The Left and The Right are both completely arbatrary points in a vast political plane. They aren't fixed cornerstones; in fact they change all the time. It's easy to forget that.
Each election, the country alternates back and forth between these two options presented to us, but we hopefully choose between them based on facts. Either the economy is doing better, or it's getting worse. Tax cuts either help that or hurt it. That's not an endorsement or rejection of ideology - it's just truth. It makes no sense, and does no good to insist that the media treat both positions with kid-gloves when they either work or don't. But that's exactly what's going on. Both sides are presented as equally valid, because the most serious media outlets are afraid of being of labeled as "biased". That is not not the right way to go.
I know that to right-leaning ears, I'm sounding biased myself. I'll freely admit that both parties, at various times in the past, have manipulated and distorted facts. Absolutely true. But before, it was something that they could be called out for and exposed. Now, you can just deny, deny, deny and create your own proprietary version of reality. I'm sorry, but honestly what I'm seeing right now is the Right deliberately exploiting this cynical attitude to the truth in order to move the goal-posts in their own favor. And this does nobody any good. Certainly not the country, and not conservative policy either. **
* I anticipate a challenge over which side is being reasonable (if any) when it comes to the budget showdown. That's perfectly fine. I stated some things matter-of-factly without really making an argument. I did that because I didn't want to detour from the general flow of this blog by stacking arguments. But if anyone wants to broach it in the comments, I'm game for a discussion.
** I've been gathering notes for the past couple of months for a blog on MY definition of conservativism. What it is in essence, what I'd like to see it return to. I don't know when I'm going to start writing it, but I'm going to try to make it my big project for this year (what with the election). I'm thinking of preceding it by two polemics. One against libertarianism, describing the flaws in that ideology. Another listing the classic complaints against modern liberalism, and the necessity of a conservative alterative. I'm not 100% sure that I'll do the polemics, or when I'll release them. The main blog I'll probably aim for in the summer or early fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)