The Seattle Republican

What I don't understand about the gay marriage case

2010-08-10T23:11:00.000-07:00

I should preface this by saying that I don't feel that strongly about gay marriage. But I do feel strongly in favor of democracy and allowing votes to stand and I don't understand the basic framework of the gay marriage legal debate as it was argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger before Judge Vaughn Walker. Well, I understand it -- I am a lawyer -- but I don't understand why the pro-prop 8 people bought into the legal framework.

As I see it, the issue should not be whether marriage should be considered a fundamental right or whether states have a rational basis to infringe that right. The case should never even reach that issue. The first issue for me is whether a right is being infringed at all. I don't see how gay people have a different right than straight people. Rights are held by individuals and as far as I can tell everyone has the same right to marry which is now and always has been severely restricted. Every unmarried person over 17 years of age has the right to enter into a legal state of matrimony with another person if that person is:
- Human
- Of the opposite sex
- Unmarried
- Over 17
- Not a close relative
- Not taking part in a sham marriage for immigration purposes
- Present for a ceremony
- Medically compatible and
- Willing to marry them

Everyone has the same right, gay or straight. Love has nothing to do with it legally. No one has ever had the right to "marry whomever they love." Moreover, no one asks whether you are gay when you get married. All gay people have the right described above.

So if everyone has the same right how is it that gay people are being discriminated against because they're gay? How are they being discriminated against at all?

If people want to create a new right to marry people of the same sex, that could be done in the legislature which is the branch of government designed to make the tough ethical calls. But that has not been done.

So what I don't understand is why the defense team at trial accepted the framework of the plaintiffs and argued about whether there was or was not a rational basis for infringing on the rights of gays. Why even concede that any right has been infringed?

Putting that aside and addressing the reasoning the court did conduct, one thing seems quite clear which is that society has a "rational basis" for constructing marriage the way it has. The reason society has marriage and preserves it for people of the opposite sex is to celebrate the kind of relationship that society has traditionally been built on -- an often tough relationship that is worth celebrating. It's done a lot for us, so we want to celebrate it. That is its rational basis just as the rational basis of Columbus Day is to celebrate the achievements of Columbus, the celebration of which is neither irrational nor intended to discriminate against people who prefer Ponce de Leon.

Should we be trading with China?

2010-07-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

I just got back from a trip to China. I already love Hong Kong, and I wanted to get a first hand look at mainland China as it emerges as a major player on the world economic stage. The business press often presents an alluring view of China. I had read it all and was eager to learn more.

When I got to my hotel room in Shanghai I fired up the laptop to visit Facebook and Twitter and let everyone know I was here. Facebook and Twitter did not load. I tried to Google and was redirected to Google Hong Kong. I realized that the government was watching, and manipulating, the information I was able to receive in my hotel room. That was my first reminder that China's form of government has a substantial dark side. In general, China in person proved to be much less exciting and much more depressing than I had hoped. I have been thinking a great deal about our relations with China since then and have come to some conclusions below.

Over the past twenty years, the consensus view was that we should trade with oppressive states such as China because trade would help them down the path toward economic and political freedom. In the end, the political systems of all countries (more or less), would come to resemble western free market democracies and we would achieve a prosperous global peace. Richard Pipes postulated a direct connection between economic freedom and political freedom in Property and Freedom. Francis Fukuyama foretold global progress toward a universal acceptance of capitalist liberal democracy in The End of History and the Last Man. We enthusiastically embraced trade with China on these theories.

Our trade deficit with China has ballooned from $2 billion in 1989 to $250 billion in 2009. In that space of time, China rose to become the second largest national economy in the world. For perspective, our deficit with Japan was $45 billion in 2009 and was ~$88 billion pre-recession (it has been above $50 billion per year for 20 years). Our deficit with South Korea was $20 billion in 2009. (Trade data here.) So we are borrowing $250 billion per year to support the Chinese economy. China has been almost humorously unsubtle in devising the unfair and self-interested policies that govern foreign businesses in China.

We have accepted trade deficits with partners to help them grow. We wanted Japan to thrive after World War II so we supported it. We wanted South Korea to be a shining example in Asia of the virtues of capitalist liberal democracy so we have accepted trade deficits with them. We do this from time to time to effect change in the world. In the cases of Japan and South Korea, their economies were small enough that the US economy could tolerate a deficit with them without suffering undue stress.

Economists have varied opinions about the impact of trade deficits, but it cannot be denied that in the broad sweep of history every country with substantial trade surpluses (Japan, Korea, Germany, the United States before 1970) has gotten stronger and more prosperous while countries with substantial deficits have not. So perhaps despite theoretical debate we can say that, for practical purposes, the proof is in the pudding.

The size of our trade deficit with China is unprecedented. Because it is unprecedented, its effects are hard to predict. Economists and economic observers offer conflicting assessments of our deficit with China and our trade deficit in general. Some say that trade deficits drive growth. Almost all agree that trade deficits create currency insecurity. Some, including Andy Grove, say that deficits, by exporting jobs that would once have been held by America’s middle class, change America’s basic class structure, enriching the elite and undermining the middle class (here), and will ultimately stifle America’s ability to continue to innovate (here). There is a good overview by Tim Duy here of these lines of reasoning. These are not AFL-CIO representatives who are self-interestedly seeking wage protection for their union members. These are intelligent, disinterested American observers and they have become “free trade heretics.”

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heretics are right: working within China’s mercantilist trade scheme – which requires not only a massive flow of capital to them but also a massive flow of technical know-how to them -- may be a horrible strategic error with significant negative implications for our basic social structure in the United States as well as on our ultimate ability to remain globally competitive. The theories that led us to trade with China in the first place were, it appears, sadly mistaken. The clash of civilizations theory of Samuel Huntington appears, in the end, to have been closer to the mark. Instead of capitalism influencing nations, nations appear to have inherent cultural predilections that do not change, whether they are heavily engaged with international business or not. International business can make them a wealthier version of whatever they were before, but it does not appear to change them otherwise. Certainly it does not appear to be changing China with respect to political freedoms.

At the very least, we can conclude that open trade (one way open trade) with China is economically risky.

In addition to the economic issues though, there is an ethical issue here. China controls the information available to and the basic freedoms of its workers, it oppresses its workers and by trading with China we help the governing regime do that. The government controls its currency, preventing currency markets from correcting trade imbalances. The average new college graduate in China makes 2,000 yuan per month. That’s about $300. Factory workers make less than $200 per month. These people are very poor and, despite some limited signs that they are starting to speak out and strike for higher wages (but primarily against foreign companies), they have very limited political freedom. At the same time, there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai. The Chinese elite are getting rich. The Chinese elite make their millions off the sweat of the Chinese people. And then they control what those people think, what they say, what they can see and what they make. By refusing to increase the value of the Yuan, China keeps its workers’ wages low (measured on an international scale), keeping the elite in business.

When does labor become slave labor? If we do not believe that trading with a country tends to make that country more free, when is a country so oppressive that we should not trade with them? Especially when that trade makes the regime more secure and creates risks for our economy? Should we trade with countries that keep millions of workers in conditions of poverty, oppression and ignorance? How oppressive does a regime have to be for trade to be ethically wrong and politically counter-productive? What we have in China is a massive population enslaved by an elite that keeps them in ignorance and keeps their wages low. What should we do now that Plan A hasn’t worked?

I believe we need to explore putting China on a trade balance program where we adopt a trading scheme designed explicitly to yield a balanced trade relationship that does not allow uncompensated technology transfer from the US to China. Our goal should be to achieve a balanced trade relationship within 5 years.

My second choice would be to declare defeat in our quest to influence China and withdraw from China trade altogether. It would be an economic shock but we were affluent before trading with China. We can be affluent again without someone sucking all of our capital and technology out of our country.

When we look back on this period economically, strategically and ethically I believe we will conclude we should have acted sooner.

Why You Don't Hear Much about the Shanghai World Expo

2010-07-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

Why you don’t hear much about the Shanghai World Expo

I recently spent some time in China and went to the Shanghai World Expo. Before I went to the Expo, I had wondered why I hadn’t heard more about it in the Western travel press. It’s supposed to be a world expo, right? Surely there was something remarkable about it?

Well, the reason you don’t hear much about it is that it’s an awful experience and perhaps also because it suggests some uncomfortable truths about the government of China that many people would like to sweep under the rug. Not only is the experience awful but the very concept of it is awful.    So my advice is: don’t go.

Here’s why the experience is awful.   It is, as you know, in Shanghai, on the East side of the Huangpo. So at this time of year it’s quite balmy. The new subway doesn’t conveniently connect to the expo. The closest you can get by cab is maybe three quarters of a mile from the expo itself. So you trudge through the heat, buy your tickets and finally get to the area where the pavilions are. The pavilions are large buildings that each country has set up. The general idea is that you go in the buildings and see whatever it is each country wants you to see. We got in line for the Australian pavilion. I had heard something good about it. It was a long line.

So this is the main problem: the lines are absurdly long and the Chinese are not good at lines. 99.999% of the visitors to the Expo are mainland Chinese. Some cultures are queuing cultures (US, UK, Canada, Japan) and some are not (Mexico, Italy, apparently China). So you have thousands of sweaty people in a long line trying to somehow get past you or get a two foot edge so they can get into the pavilion 30 seconds before you. When the line is over an hour long, that gets extremely tiresome.

Then you get inside and find the second problem. Inside, there is another long line that, in the case of Australia, leads up to a theater where you see a movie on a rotating screen. The movie is about how Australia is a nearby island that is a nice place whose people care about the environment and want to be good friends with China. It’s about 5 minutes long and, yes, is as insubstantial as it sounds. So the second problem is that you have waited all this time for nothing.   Unlike expos in centuries past, where people have demonstrated new technology and products, this is apparently one where people share fatuous movies about how much they like China.

When you’re done with the movie, you go to the souvenir stand where they have stuffed koala bears. That’s probably the best part.

So, who’s up for the Saudi Arabia pavilion? Uhmmm…how about nobody. We realized after Australia that you could go into the gift shops without waiting in line so we just went to a few gift shops.

OK so the Expo is not a great experience for Western tourists. What of it?

Here’s the ethical problem with the Expo. The audience for the expo are the Chinese people. The Expo is not about the world coming together to share ideas, it is about the Communist Party of China, abetted by the nations of the world, making a statement to the Chinese people. Look at this in context: the Chinese people only get the information that the Communist Party wants them to get. You can’t get Facebook in China. You can’t get Twitter in China. Certain Amazon.com detail pages are blocked in China (like this one). They imprison people who speak out against the government. The goal of the Communist Party (which is no longer “communist” in any economic sense and should really be called the Chinese Fascist Party), is to stay in power. They want to avoid another Tiananmen Square incident and they want to avoid getting kicked out like their cousins the Communist Party of Russia. So they also manage a year round propaganda effort communicating the idea to the Chinese people that the Party is taking the country to new heights. The Expo is part of that effort.

This may be an elaborate metaphor, but imagine a villain who falsely imprisons some innocent people. At first a few try to escape, but they are killed. The remaining innocent people hope that the sheriff will find out about this and save them. One day the villain has the sheriff over to tour his house and have dinner, just to show the prisoners that everyone who might save them is friends with the villain, and they might as well get on board. (In the movie version, one of the prisoners would slip the sheriff a note as he leaves the dinner – “HELP US!”)

I am not saying that most people in China consciously hate the regime there. Like the people of North Korea, they are to a large extent brainwashed. They are not a free people, and they do not have access to information the government does not provide. So they might think they love the regime or if they have complaints they might not voice them. There is no way to know what they think, or what they would think given information and the freedom to speak. They are prisoners of a ruling junta which is sad. The junta has done some things that have helped the Chinese people, but still the people are prisoners.

Should we be party to that? Should we be party to the manipulation of the Chinese people? Should we, as the sheriff, tour the villain’s house and smile, showing the prisoners that everyone in the world, including the world’s flagship for freedom, supports the villain? The Expo is a way to pander to the Communist Party of China by helping it manipulate the Chinese people. In my view, we should not be a part of it.

Convention Impressions II: What and Who Can Win in Washington State in 2010

2010-06-15T00:51:00.000-07:00

At the recent convention, candidates and speakers broke into three groups -- unity people (Sam Reed, Doc Hastings), jobs people (Rossi, Romney) and rights people (Malkin, Didier). What issues will work in Washington in 2010?

We all like jobs and we all like rights. I'd like to order a jobs and rights sandwich. But it's worth thinking about what sort of rhetoric is likely to lead the party out of the cold electoral penalty box in which it resides.

Washington State
One fact worth noting up front: if we get the votes of 100% of the Republicans in the State of Washington, and no one else, then we get our heads handed to us on a platter. And that's a lot worse than winning. In this respect, our highly educated blue state is most similar to California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

In light of that, it is also worth learning from the fact that Scott Brown, who recently won the kind of victory we want here in the Senate, was a pretty middle of the road conservative. He was not, for example, adamantly pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, he was practical, he endorsed conservative values. But he did not campaign with red-faced speeches about "reversing the slide to tyranny." He was not an angry candidate. Chris Christie, who beat Corzine in New Jersey by four points to win in that Democratic state, also did not run as pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, otherwise pretty middle of the road and appealed to centrist voters who wanted to get the budget under control. Carly Fiorina beat Chuck Devore in her California primary with a middle of the road campaign that was long on fiscal issues and pro-business.

Now, I support Rubio over Christ (not Jesus, but Charlie). I am a Reagan conservative. And, like Reagan, I like to win. Here's my analysis from the point of view of succeeding with the Washington electorate as a whole (and remember firing up 1,000 die hard Republican delegates is not similar to firing up the electorate as a whole).

Bad and Good Issues in Washington
Bad issues and tendencies --

1. True anger is unpopular. Angry candidates always, always lose. Be positive. It can work to be offended or to get steely or to get your back up, but if you are a political candidate and you come off as white knuckle angry, you're going to be making speeches to your family in the kitchen for the next couple of years and not on C-SPAN. Americans tend to elect people who appear to be in control of themselves and who have a positive view of fellow Americans and our shared future. They don't elect people who grip the podium and yell "when I get to DC, there's going to be HELL TO PAY!!!"

2. As an issue in blue states, Abortion is a vote loser. Sorry but it's true. Neither Scott Brown nor Chris Christie ran pro-life campaigns. As a practical matter, Roe v. Wade is just not going to be overturned. Let's not sacrifice our whole national future for this will o' the wisp. The thing about dying on your political sword is that at the end of it, you're dead. If you want to run like Jim DeMint or Sam Brownback, you are going to have to move to South Carolina or Kansas.

3. Hyperbole is bad. If you say "we're here in defiance of tyranny" the average voter doesn't know what you are talking about. This is simply not China, it's not the Soviet Union and no one in the middle 80% of the electorate thinks it is. So if you say it is then you come off as crazy or as a manipulator. Candidates can and should argue for liberty and criticize Democrats for paying insufficient attention to liberty and for being utilitarians, but keep it realistic. Point out specifically where liberty is being violated, and do so in a realistic way. Oh and by the way, the word "defiance" sounds a lot like the word "defence" if you speak quickly (if you have a tendency to speed up in your delivery when making speeches), consider another word. Or better yet, skip it entirely and go for one of the winner issues (below).

4. Small point but something to watch out for -- it appears to be popular to discuss how you or your parents achieved financial success. This can cut both ways in a stump speech. What it can sound like is that you have made your bundle and now you want to keep it, and that is why you want low taxes. That is, it can appear that you are opposed to high taxes for selfish reasons. The better approach is to favor low taxes because they create opportunity and they create jobs. Like, for other people! The most successful wealthy candidates have been Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.).

5. Fringe issues are losers. Don't talk about auditing the Federal Reserve. You sound like you want to go back to the days of Andrew Jackson. And no one wants to go there with you or really knows what you're talking about.

Good issues and tendencies --

1. The economy -- jobs, low taxes, bailouts and health care -- is a great issue. This is a strong point for GOP candidates, as usual. The Dems will say they are just trying to clean up Bush's mess but I think that's wearing thin. However, I would warn that Bush is not totally forgotten and many candidates are leaving open a hole in their argument by following the traditional playbook. They are saying they want lower taxes and a lower deficit but they aren't saying how they want to cut spending. Reagan was able to get away with that by saying he was going to cut waste. But after Reagan, Bush and Bush II all dramatically increased deficits, I think the electorate has caught on here and...it certainly blew up in the face of John McCain. His tax-cutting rhetoric simply didn't sell to a public made skeptical by the Bush formula of tax cuts and huge deficits. GOP candidates have to start owning up to what spending they want to cut if they want to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit." Mark Ryan has some good thoughts here. Also, candidates who speak against bank bailouts should be prepared to say whether they would have allowed the banks to go under. Still, this is a good issue.

2. This year, candidates should hammer corrupt public sector unions and their connections to Democrat politicians, including the card check issue. In general, there appears to be a growing recognition that the benefits enjoyed by state employees are out of whack, and that the system of having unions elect politicians who then make deals with the unions simply does not work. I personally think that SEIU and ACORN overstepped and that the public is starting to really resent them. I would campaign against SEIU all day long.

3. Very closely related issue: School choice and merit pay for teachers could work well. Teachers are certainly tarred by the government union brush now.
4. Homeland Security should be strong for GOPers this year. Obama and his Antiterroist chief John Brennan are weak on this issue. They insist on pretending, for PC reasons, that Islam has nothing to do with it. They will never mention Islam even in the Hassan case. It's insane and the public knows it's insane (see a good run down of the issue by Joe Lieberman here). We have to recognize that Islam is at the heart of the global terrorism problem today, even as we remain open and fair to moderate Muslims.
Wildcard issues --

1. Immigration. I think we need to get tough on this, but it can be a difficult issue depending on the district. Anyway, no one spent a lot of time on this.

CANDIDATES

SENATE

CLINT DIDIER had a strong personal appeal. He is just a charismatic guy. And he certainly seems like he's giving it to you straight from the heart. However, he is deeply embracing Bad traits 1 (anger) and 3 (hyperbole). If anyone could scare Washington into re-electing Patty Murray, it would be Clint Didier. Not to mention the fact that, for better or worse, being from East of the Cascades is a real weakness in a state wide race. My hope is that Clint can mature his rhetoric a bit and play an important role in state or national politics one day because he is very likable, like a Reagan. But for now this is one of the angriest guys I've ever seen. I thought he was going to burst like Bruce Banner turning into the Incredible Hulk. That's fun, but it doesn't win political races, certainly not in Washington. Against Patty Murray I would say he is a twelve point loser.

PAUL AKERS doesn't fit into the above rubric very well because he spends 60% of his speech talking about lean manufacturing. I'm sorry, are we electing a VP of Operations here? It's bizarre he's still in the race. Drop out Paul. You're not a natural politician. Try to get appointed to something.

DINO ROSSI came off well and had a lot of fans in the audience. A reporter at the Seattle Times said he thought most people supported Didier. I didn't see that. I thought the majority supported Rossi. But it was probably within ten points. Dino talked about the economy, earning good points for going to Good issue #1. Unfortunately, he had to spend some time talking to the audience about why he didn't get into the race earlier. I would drop that part of the speech. Maybe he didnt' get in earlier because the race is not until November. Why bother? Anyway, Dino was effective on the economy and healthcare and communicated a passion for running for Senate. He effectively went after Patty Murray for being weak on the budget and for indulging in too many earmarks. I think if he goes against Patty Murray, he will win by at least 4 points. I expect Dino will win the nomination but Clint will run Dino down a bit before he does.

House of Representatives --

I'm not going to cover every race, but I will comment on the 3rd because it seems most interesting. There the major candidates appear to be Jamie Herrera, David Castillo and David Hedrick. Herrera had a lot of support around the convention (or a lot of stickers anyway), and she's attractive. I take it she is the frontrunner. However, In this blogger's view she didn't deliver a strong performance. Her delivery seemed young as if she was a candidate for student body president. Her policies seemed pretty mainstream but with a tinge of Bad trait #3 (hyperbole) when she talks about our nation being on the precipice (I believe it was that our "freedoms are imperiled" but she said it a few different ways). Finally, the whole thing just seemed a bit canned. Some candidates come off as having a great deal of intellectual depth that informs their speeches. She does not. She sounds like someone you would hire into a very junior position. Not congress. I'll tell you, those arguments sounded a lot more sincere coming from Clint Didier. I thought he was going to kill the next person who taxed him.

David Castillo came off fairly well but no slam dunk. Scored some solid points on economics, then veered off to tell us about how he made money (risky point, see Bad #4) and a bunch of details about his sympathetic family life (that stuff never works well on me, I always find it manipulative). He then talked about his government experience assuming we had heard of him and knew what it was. He should work on that. But he came off as passionate without being angry and he hit the economics points (Good #1). So he did pretty well.

Davdi Hedrick was just a wild card libertarian. He violated Bad rules #3 (hyperbole) and 5 (fringe) by focusing on the Federal Reserve. That said, he was funny, seemed smart and seemed to believe in what he was saying. He was not angry. He said "I have heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Good one. That may have been the best line not uttered by Mitt Romney. He was a very engaging and passionate speaker. I think he has a future even though I suspect Castillo will win this primary in a squeaker.

Other Quick Impressions --

James Watkins -- Watkins came off as a very promising newcomer. Level headed but passionate, strong on Good issues and making an efective case for residents of the 1st district. Inslee has taken 66%+ the last few elections, so it will be tough but maybe this is the year.
Doc Hastings -- Very good. I had never heard him speak but he was a unity speaker. He compared 2010 favorably to 1994 for the Republicans. He was very specific with detailed facts. That was much more compelling than some of the high level speeches most people were giving. If you bring some statistics and details to a speech it will be much more compelling. Doc Hastings knows that and it showed.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers -- Her speech seemed very polished and strong. Glad we have her.
Doug Cloud in the 9th came off as angry. He used too many violent images in his speech (grabbing taxes by the back of their heads and smashing their faces into concrete? Holy cow...).

I wish all the candidates success and hope the party enjoys another 1994!

2010 Washington State Republican Convention: First Impressions

2010-06-13T23:31:00.000-07:00

I was hoping that this weekend’s Republican State Convention would be a good opportunity to meet other Republicans and get fired up for the upcoming election season. It was. Luke Esser and team did a great job accommodating 1,179 delegates (a 100% increase in attendance over the previous non-presidential convention), which reflects the enthusiasm of Republicans across the state in 2010. There were many first time delegates and there was a legion of great candidates; everyone thinks we can win in 2010.

In forthcoming notes I want to discuss the rhetoric of the candidates and the candidates themselves. For now, let me briefly recap the events and comment on just one issue, which is the schedule of the convention and what it tells us about the purpose of the convention. This sounds dry but it became an important issue for many.

In terms of their ideas of what the convention was about, delegates seemed to break into two groups. One group essentially saw the convention as an opportunity to see candidates firsthand, network with other grassroots Republicans, and plan for the upcoming year. I’ll call these people the Conventioneers. The other group hoped the convention would be more like a constitutional convention or a debating society where a platform would be drafted and negotiated in detail. I’ll call these people the Debaters.

If you’ve been to political conventions before, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Debaters were somewhat disappointed by the amount of actual debating that occurred.

Here’s how the whole thing worked, which is fairly representative of these things generally. On the first day, there were classes -- how to use new media, how to manage a political campaign, etc. This is learning time and social time. That night, there was a dinner. Dino Rossi was there and Michelle Malkin set the audience on fire. After dinner, prominent candidates hosted open gatherings in hotel rooms. As a friend of mine said, “this is where the fun begins.” Well, truth be told it doesn’t get very crazy but prominent elected officials are around and they were all very friendly and approachable. Rob McKenna had a room and was very friendly to everyone. Dino Rossi had a big room and, with his wife Terri, was very social and tirelessly posed for photos with delegates and guests. Clint Didier had a “tailgate party” to which he wore his two (three?) superbowl rings (which look huge even on his huge hand). Cathy McMorris Rodgers was there. Don Benton was there. I’m sure there were a hundred important people I didn’t even recognize. People took this time to meet each other, share ideas and compare notes from different parts of the state.

The next day, Saturday, is/was the big meeting where candidates give speeches, the keynote speaker speaks (Mitt Romney was great; his speech is accurately recounted here http://wp.me/pjvHX-Te) and the platform is passed. Then everyone goes home. The platform part starts in earnest around 2. Then the whole thing ends at 5 sharp. So there isn’t much time to debate the platform. Thus the disappointment among the Debaters.

In fact, precious little real debate occurred at all since mostly we debated the rules that would govern the debating and then we debated which issues we should probably set aside to debate later and then after that we basically ran out of time. Oops!

Trust me, I don’t want to hear again about Robert’s Rules of Order for quite a while.

Here is my perspective, though. My perspective is that the Debaters are not being realistic about the schedule or about the true importance and purpose of conventions. To debate the platform from the ground up, including every amendment, would require weeks. Even a single proposition could take hours to debate among over a thousand participants. We could have spent a summer in Vancouver and, while Southwestern Washington is a nice place, we’ve all got other plans this summer.

Some argued that debating the platform was “the people’s business that we were sent here to do.” I would disagree. Everyone knew that there was a platform committee. They took months to draft a platform. Everyone knows that it is unrealistic to draft a new platform on the spot in open debate. Our actual responsibility is to elect sensible people to the platform committee and then to accept their work unless they have clearly failed to represent the party well. Really there is no other way to do it. I think 90% of the delegates thought that the document was representative of the state of the party today and that relitigating all the various issues that were no doubt debated in the platform process would be pointless. The fact that large groups are bad at crafting documents is, after all, why the convention has a platform committee (and is why legislative bodies generally have committees).

So I think the Debaters were being unrealistic about the schedule and about our role. But also I would argue that the Debaters have an unrealistic understanding of the real purpose and true potential of conventions in general. The reality is that state platforms are not read by normal human beings (the kind of voters who actually wind up swinging elections in the real world). Therefore, platforms do not generally have a major impact on elections in the United States. That’s the fact.

What does have a major impact? The energy and message of the grassroots party organizers and influencers These are the people who are going to have and distribute yard signs, donate money, doorbell, speak with their neighbors, write blogs, organize events, tweet and in a thousand ways help the party actually win.

What matters coming out of a convention is that those influencers are fired up, informed, have plans, and perhaps have made a few new contacts in the party with whom they can coordinate. That is the important thing about a convention. The platform, assuming it does an adequate job representing the party, is not.

So my conclusion is that the Debaters both had an unrealistic idea of what can be accomplished at a convention and a very weak sense of the real life relative importance of the things that happen at a convention. The Debaters might think the social part of the convention was annoying or irrelevant (compared to the “substantive issues” of the platform) but they’re missing the point. The mingling may be “where the fun begins,” but it may be the most impactful part of the event, too.

That said, I do think the platform process can be improved. It might be better to make drafts of the platform public on WSRP.org at various stages. Feedback could be solicited from the community. Conceivably a system could be set up to track delegates, systematically tally their feedback to early drafts and expand the circle in some formal way. I would be all for that. I would also support moving from a system with one representative per Washington county, which is absurdly antidemocratic, but I’ll talk about that in my next post. Finally, I think the rules should just call for an up or down vote on the platform. We should be straight about whether we want extensive debate or not. If it’s just not on the table, then the Debaters shouldn’t be teased by rules suggesting that the broader community can reopen and debate every issue.

Thanks for reading, pals, and, as Secretary of State Sam Reed said at the convention, “stay united!”

McGinn lame ducks himself

2010-04-27T22:03:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I voted for Mike McGinn. I did so because he seemed much smarter, frankly, than his opponent. Having a dumb mayor certainly seems bad. But smarty pants has unfortunately decided that being an outsider is what he wants to be, and that he would like to go back to being a gadfly instead of being mayor.

He laid the groundwork by alienating the city council on the seawall issue and coming off as a guy who doesn't play well with others.

He finished the job on April 22 by vetoing Tim Burgess's anti-aggressive panhandling measure, which said that people, in the words of the PI, "can't block someone, use threatening or aggressive gestures or profane language, solicit someone using an ATM or repeatedly solicit someone who has already said 'no.'"

Seems pretty reasonable and inoffensive, no?

McGinn then brought together all the ACLU and other apparatchiks, who represent about 5% of the vote, to celebrate his veto. This is going to go down very poorly in the next election. You can't completely abandon the regular person. And the regular person wants to be able to walk around downtown without being accosted.

The rest of McGinn's term will be a lame duck waiting game trying to figure out who the next mayor will be. Perhaps Tim Burgess?

Exposed: Democrat Dirty Tricks in Olympia

2010-03-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times reports today that the Public Disclosure Commission has reported that there is "no evidence" that in 2008 Dino Rossi in any way coordinated his campaign with the election spending of the Building Industry Association of Washington and that the claims against him and their timing were, clearly, politically motivated.

The Times: "when either party abuses the public trust it should be called out. This was a case of the Democrats abusing the legal and regulatory process, not once, but several times."

I couldn't have said it better myself. I only wish the paper could have dug a little more to determine who was behind the strategically timed dirty trick. Presumably King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas was in on it, at least implicitly, since with no evidence at all she approved the Rossi deposition to be scheduled days before the election. Kallas certainly should not be re-elected, but how much further does this go?

Well at the very least it's fair to presume that the claimants (Washington legal insiders Robert Utter and Faith Ireland) and their attorney, ambulance chaser Mike Withey were in on it. But they're essentially tools, apparatchiks with little to lose.

Wouldn't it be surprising if Christine Gregoire and her 2008 campaign manager Kelly Evans knew nothing about this?

The Mom Rule of Constitutional Interpretation

2010-03-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

Today the Seattle Times came out defending Attorney General Rob McKenna joining Florida's lawsuit over the healthcare bill. They pointed out that Florida is footing the bill and that if you take a step back for a second it does seem kind of crazy that the healthcare bill is an expression of Congress's power to "regulate commerce." Kudos to them for being fair.

I would suggest here a principle of constitutional hermeneutics. If you interpret a clause in such a way that you could not with a straight face explain your interpretation to your mother or your 4th grade English teacher, then you have gone too far.

Do you want to tell your mom that you believe that the right to "regulate Commerce...among the several States" includes the right to force every citizen to buy insurance? I don't, brother.

Fantasy is easier to sell than truth -- in the short term

2010-03-28T22:28:00.001-07:00

To the Liberal Democrat, history is always in the midst of an incomplete progression toward a utopian end. History is a story with a happy ending and we are all always making progress through that story. In the fullness of time, with occasional and minor setbacks caused by ignorance, we will achieve, in the Liberal view, a society where all needs are met equally for everyone, where there is no lack and no unfairness. In the end our long struggle will bring into existence the kind of perfect society humans have been fighting for and dreaming of forever.

To the conservative, there is no perfect society but the United States of American pretty much is about as close as we’re going to get to the society humans have been fighting for and dreaming of forever. The culture and economic success of the United States of America are precious and unique achievements that must be protected from destruction by those who do not understand what makes them precious and unique. Two of the most important characteristics of this culture are individual freedom and opportunity. To the extent we can use new tools and theories to better secure these or to improve our lives in other ways, we should, but above all else we should safeguard this unique American life.

To accomplish Liberal goals it is important to keep expanding, in George Will's phrase, "the network of dependency" (on government) and essentially keep voting new gifts to people while taking a larger and larger share of money away from the people who, in an above average way, contribute to and earn money from the economy.

To accomplish Conservative goals we need to above all prevent anyone with bad ideas from messing up the system. And secondly, we need to make things even better where we can without messing up the underlying goodness.

It is harder to get people to vote for a Conservative platform because it is, obviously, not as full of goodies.

Now, that said, Conservatism does have certain advantages. The main advantage of Conservative policies is that they work. The qualities of individual opportunity and liberty are so psychologically important to humans that when you remove them from a society, things tend to go quite poorly but when you design an economy and political system taking them into account, things can go quite well.

I hope we can make this case well enough that we don't need to learn the lessons of Liberalism and of the late 1970s again the hard way.

Obama in 2012: Either an Idiot or a Genius

2010-03-28T22:14:00.001-07:00

By getting his bill passed, Obama has avoided the debilitating fate of being perceived as an inexperienced incompetent who wasted America's time. He should be delighted that it passed, and he is.

Many clever ruses were employed not only to get the bill passed but also to optimize the bill’s impact on his and his party’s electoral success, not least of which is pushing much of the tax pain until after the next presidential election. I have to say, that was brilliant. You have to give David Plouffe some credit. I wish he was on our side, except that I wouldn’t want anyone that dishonest on our side.

Here is the major ramification: the 2012 election, one way or another, will now not be particularly close: Obama will be, by then, either an idiot or a genius. If the economy keeps going despite Obama’s massive new deficits, then Obama will win easily. It will not be close. The objection to a massive new entitlement or a massive stimulus bill is that it is too expensive and will therefore hurt the economy. So if the economy goes sour the Dems will pay the price. But if the economy does not and it turns out that the system can, in the end, support more spending and larger deficits, then Obama wins.

The Democrats complained about Reagan’s deficits. Kennedy, Carter, Mondale, Lester Thurow, Pat Schroeder and Howard Metzenbaum predicted that Reagan would ruin the economy. The Reagan administration set the economy on a course for multiple decades of prosperity and now Reagan is a genius, no one has heard of Howard Metzenbaum and Lester Thurow is a nobody.

In theory, the government can only borrow so much. If it borrows too much, then there is nothing left over for corporations to borrow so the economy goes bad. Or if that doesn't shut things down global financial markets may lose faith in the ability of the government to repay its borrowings, which will drive up interest rates and depress the economy. If the government tries to avoid its debts by devaluing its currency, it will lead to inflation. By whatever theory you like, there is a point at which you have borrowed too much. Just ask Greece. The trouble is that no one knows where that point is. Paul Krugman doesn’t know. Paul Volcker doesn’t know. Alan Greenspan doesn’t know.

Similarly, there is some point at which taxes are too high and people lose incentives to work and invest. So the economy goes bad. We’re not sure when that happens either or how to measure its exact effects, though there is a general notion that we probably reached that point under Jimmy Carter and that the UK definitely reached that point pre-Margaret Thatcher.

But the bottom line is that no one can exactly predict the economy's tolerance for high taxes or high deficits. Chloride is a caustic chemical that can be used to make poison gas. But if you put it together with Sodium to make salt, then in reasonable quantities it makes our food taste great. At this point with respect to major economic phenomena, no one knows what "reasonable quantities" are but we are making some major, and some would say (count me among them), unnecessary bets as to what they are not.

The key is that everyone is on the record. Obama and Krugman are on one side saying that the proposed deficits and necessary taxes (which have not been fully specified) can and will be fully compatible with a successful economy. The Republican Party says they are incompatible. We will find out soon enough. If things go well it will not be a defense to say that whether it went well or not it was an unnecessary risk at a bad time to take an economic risk. If everything works out, no one will care about that. Obama and Krugman will be geniuses.

But if things do not go well and this blows up in our collective face then Obama is Carter 2.0.

The best thing I've heard about the health care bill

2010-03-21T20:44:00.000-07:00

From Cynthia Lummis on Twitter (@cynthialummis): Pelosi wins, American loses.

A Guide to Local District Party Meetings and A Brief Record of Saturday's 46th District Meeting

2010-03-21T20:40:00.001-07:00

Taking a break from healthcare for a minute. Spent my Saturday morning at the 46^th District Caucus. Have you thought about going and wondered what local party meetings are all about? Well I’ve been to several now and here’s how it works.

Mostly, they’re formally structured events focused on a particular bit of business, usually electing some subset of the group to be delegates to a county assembly or some such. Sometimes there is also a speaker, usually a candidate , who will make a speech, but usually not. Sometimes the two activities are combined, as in: “we’re going to hear our speaker and then we’re going to elect delegates to the county convention.” That covers the typical agenda. It usually takes place in the basement of a church, or in the gym of a school, and lasts about an hour.

The meetings follow Robert’s Rules of Order, which many people seem to be quite expert in, so there is much discussion of “motions” and “seconds” and “amendments” and so on. This aspect gets quite pedantic, but serves to keep the meeting on topic and to make sure things don’t get wildly out of hand.

Though open to all Republicans, the meetings are generally small and the attendee profile skews to Retirees, who probably have a bit more time to deal with local party administrative matters now that they’re not dealing with kids and work. There is also usually a little group of Activists. The Activists often have an eager glint in their eye and want you to sign something. Then there are usually one or two newcomers attending their first District level meeting, mostly there out of curiosity and looking a little confused. Finally, there are the party Veterans who actually manage the day to day rubber meets the road workings of the party. This local organizing function can be very important in getting out the vote and is handled by some very dedicated people. In the 46^th District of Washington, this role is for true optimists since we haven’t had an elected Republican since 1983! But you can count me as one of the optimists, too.

The elections are generally not heavily contested. Basically, the Chairman has usually identified who should be on the committee (or whatever it is) and that person is usually approved. So the process is often somewhat formal and perfunctory, like many corporate annual meetings if you have ever been to one of those. The tension of these events, if there is any, is that a lot of Newcomers come hoping to find a debating society and others, the Activists, are looking to make political news by getting the District Caucus to formally adopt some sort of political motion endorsing their group’s views. So usually toward the end of the meeting the Activists make a motion to try to consider a resolution, which they have written up for the occasion. To understand the tone of these resolutions by the way, you have to imagine combining a somewhat fringy agenda, verbose and coded verbiage, and an air of determined pointlessness since nothing done at the District level actually matters except the election of representatives to the County level.

So the “excitement” is that the Veterans want to do the official business and get out of there without embarrassment and the Activists want to make resolutions. The Newcomers are often the people in the middle whose votes are necessary to save the District from the embarrassing proposal of the week.

At yesterday’s 46^th district meeting in particular, the main business was to elect 20 delegates and 10 alternate delegates to the State Convention in Vancouver in June. In a written document distributed to everyone in attendance, Chairman Bob Guthrie endorsed 11 people who had been helpful to the party. Then nominations were taken from the floor such that we wound up with 25 candidates for 20 spots. The Chair’s candidates had a major advantage (they were all voted in) so the real issue was over the remaining nine spots. Each candidate who was present spoke for about 30 seconds, usually saying where they live or what they do or just saying their name and talking about their previous party involvement. No one really said anything ideological or very political. One woman basically just said that she was 100% Irish -- and she got elected! It’s funny how these things work, I guess.

While the party Veterans counted the votes, former State Senator George Scott said a few words recalling a bit of the 46^th District’s history. That was actually quite interesting, and I have started to read his book about Washington state politics, A Majority of One: Legislative Life.

Ralph Kosche, who is the District’s representative to the party platform committee, also said a few words and encouraged people with platform recommendations to email him but unfortunately I can’t remember the email address. It was something like 46thgopplatform@gmail.com. But I’m not sure. If anyone remembers, please let me know!

When the votes were all counted, we had 20 delegates and 10 alternates. I was the #1 alternate. Yes, number 1!

At the very end, the Activists won a (very) modest victory, getting the group to adopt a resolution basically restating the 10^th Amendment.

I do feel that perhaps things could be improved in two ways.

First, there should probably be some way to help people get informed about things that are going to happen in the meeting. So if there is going to be a resolution considered it should be available at a web site. If we’re going to elect representatives, maybe they should have to say something about themselves online. What the District representatives do at the state convention is vote on the platform mainly. So it would be helpful to know whether a given representative is a middle of the road Slade Gorton Republican or a Reaganite or a Glenn Beck Tea Partier. Coming out of yesterday’s meeting, there is no way at all to know what the representatives believe. So they may or may not really be representative of anything. That can be improved.

Second, maybe local party enthusiasts should have a debating society if that’s what some people want. There should be a website where people can voice their opinions and which is unofficially associated with the District.

Hey look. I just created one, a Google Group called Unofficial WA GOP 46th District Discussions. Maybe that will be helpful.

Would Exile Be Cruel and Unusual?

2010-03-08T09:18:00.001-08:00

Why do we have prisons in the US? I mean jails sure, to hold overnight drunks and such, but why prisons to hold people for long periods of time? We spent $68 billion on prisons and jails last year. There has to be a cheaper way and, if we have to waste money somewhere, why waste it here?

What if we sent people to prison in Mexico? Or Gambia? I am sure Mexico and Gambia would be happy to build prisons to our specifications, treat our prisoners as we require under the terms of a contract, open their prisons to inspections, etc. And I am sure we could cut costs by 50% at least.

For a lot of convicts, we might not need to send them to prison at all. What if we just said that for certain crimes the punishment is exile from the United States, for a period of time or for life? You can live wherever you want, but not here.

We could make a deal with countries to send convicts there. We would have a treaty with the receiving countries establishing a minimum standard of treatment for exiles. Exiles would get citizenship in the new country.

This would cost something. We might have to pay Gambia or New Guinea or whomever $100,000 per convict or so. But we would save a lot of money. We probably spend that in a single year housing and guarding each convict.

Is this cruel? Is it unusual? Well, it’s certainly not historically unusual. Exile is a traditional punishment going back to the ancient Greeks.

Is it cruel? Well, compared to what? Compared to being in prison for ten years? I am not sure it is crueler than that. That’s pretty awful. And I bet exiled convicts would more often abandon crime than people who go to US prisons. US prisons are great places to meet other criminals and learn from them. Sometimes what you need is to get away from it all.

Leaving Fantasyland, Please Return Your Rose Colored Glasses

2010-03-08T09:11:00.000-08:00

What if we had household elections? Every two years, someone could run for CFO. The CFO would decide how we spend and make our money. People would, in running for office, make speeches, perhaps after dinner, about trips to Maui, a new Mercedes, a new house in Fantasyland and higher allowances for the kids. Another candidate might run suggesting we get a house in Realityland and live more modestly. The Fantasyland candidate would criticize this candidate as being pessimistic, cheap and probably lacking in human kindness. The most optimistic candidate would win a lot because people love to hope for great things.

Politicians, especially Democrats but really almost all mainstream politicians today, are Fantasyland candidates. They love to hope for great things and they love to make big promises. And they love to get elected!

Unfortunately, great things don’t always happen, or sometimes the future turns out not to be as crazy awesome as we had hoped. Many of our past expectations about the present were based on a vision of a crazy awesome economy. Oh well. Our heart was in the right place.

The trouble with the Fantasyland candidate is that the family that elects him or her winds up poor. After a few fun years they spend themselves into debts they can’t pay. They wind up worse off than the Realityland candidate family.

Politicians, when they create a government program, do not really know if it will be affordable. They don’t know what it will cost in the long run and they don’t know what the economy will be like then either. It is up to voters to be vigilant and work to terminate or reduce the scope of programs that force us to spend more than we can afford, even on appealing items. That can be unfun (we would like to be the type of family that goes to Maui every year), but it is necessary.

We Americans need to move to Realityland. To do this, we need to be more skeptical of the promises of political candidates, and we need to reverse the Washington budgeting mindset. Today, in Washington we determine what we need to spend and then figure out what taxes should be. That way taxes always go up because there are always cost over-runs. This doesn’t work because there is no end of awesome sounding programs politicians can think of, just as there is no end to the ideas we could come up with to spend our own personal money.

The way it should work is that we figure out what tax rate is reasonable for the product called Government. Then we figure out how we are going to spend the money we actually expect to get. By definition under such a system there would be no such thing as “mandatory” spending. All spending commitments would be made on an “assuming we can” basis.

We should agree on a reasonable tax rate and structure that allows for economic freedom, incentives to work and a private economy. We should agree that the federal government budget must be balanced every year. And then we should spend only the money we receive. The tax code should rarely change.

If you and I agreed to take that trip to Hawaii every year, we might find we can’t really afford it. In that case, we would change plans. Would we be disappointed? Of course. But that’s reality. We would adjust.
Today, the federal government spends $33,000 for every household. The average household makes $50,000. Does $33,000 seem like a lot to you in that context? Does that seem reasonable? Not to me. It seems pretty out of control to me.

What seems reasonable? Hmmm…$18,000 per household? Almost 40% of household income? That seems reasonable, and sustainable, to me.

This would require us to cut current federal government expenditures approximately in half. There would be, necessarily, no sacred cows here and we would have to reduce the size of Social Security, Medicare and the Military.

I loved Top Gun and I am glad we won WWII. But we would have to stop being policeman to the world. Goodbye bases protecting Japan, Korea and Europe. Protect yourselves, guys, and thanks for all the gratitude.

Social Security and Medicare would become safety net programs for the poor, like welfare.

Why would we have to do this? Is it because we hate people? Is it because we’re pessimistic?

It is because it is too expensive to do otherwise. That’s what we have learned in recent years. Sorry. That’s the reality of it all.

A Fix For the Economy: Buy Mortgages Down by 33%

2010-03-08T08:24:00.001-08:00

OK. I have an idea.

Here’s the problem. 25% of homeowners are underwater on their mortgages right now. That’s unbelievable. It’s horrible. I’m surprised things aren’t much, much worse in the general economy.

From 1996-2006, home values skyrocketed. In California they approximately tripled. In Washington they more than doubled. A lot of people received the magical gift of massive new equity in their homes. Let’s look at an imaginary couple, Bob and Sue, who bought a house in 1997 for $500,000, putting down $50,000 and borrowing $450,000. By 2002, that home could easily have been worth $800,000. Bob and Sue were worth $50,000 when they bought the house, plus their cash on hand, investments if any and, let’s say, an IRA. Suddenly, they had $350,000 in their house (plus their cash on hand, investments if any and their IRA). We’re rich! We’re rich!

Bob and Sue could borrow against their new equity, refinancing their $450,000 mortgage into a new $750,000 mortgage, giving them $300,000 in cash after they pay off the old mortgage. Times a million couples in the US, that bought a lot of vacations, remodels, cars, evenings out, feel good contributions to the Sierra Club, espresso machines and snazzy new outfits. Good times.

Now the market has changed. Bob and Sue’s home is worth let’s say $550,000. Oops. They’re way underwater. Not only is there no more money available in the refinancing well, but their “net worth” is negative (and plus -- their jobs are less secure in the new economy). Yikes. It’s a financial nightmare. People living financial nightmares usually aren’t in the mood to spend.

Bob and Sue’s situation is common. It’s easy to see why consumer spending, which is 70% of the economy, declined.

It’s also easy to see why banks aren’t lending very much, despite the TARP money. Firstly, Bob and Sue are not going to be inclined to borrow any time soon and their credit rating is horrible anyway (even if they haven’t missed payments, they’re overleveraged). Beyond that, the value of real estate is now perceived, rightly, as insecure. Lending now against real estate is like catching a falling knife. Banks can hope we’re at the bottom, but what if we’re not? What happens to the bank’s money then? Will there be TARP money to save them again if the market goes down another 30%? Maybe yes, maybe no, right? So banks are reluctant to lend and if they do, they want 33% down, not 5-10% down. The only entity doing any mortgage lending these days is the federal government. Banks won’t lend until the economy is looking good.

OK so we’re basically hosed, right? Bob and Sue feel poor. They are either going to walk away from their house and destroy their credit rating, in which case they won’t spend, or they will continue under the burden of their inflated mortgage, in which case they also won’t spend. If real estate appreciates at 3.5% per year going forward, Bob and Sue will have $50,000 of equity in their house again in 9 years. They will feel poor that whole time.

That is bad because despite their foibles, Bob and Sue drive the economy. Bob and Sue are us. If they don’t spend, we get the Great Depression II. Whether you like Bob and Sue or not, it’s in your interest to have them be happy and to have them feeling kind of affluent. This is the key to our economy.

Today we’re basically like a teenager who had a large drunken party while his parents were away and woke up with his house trashed, his Dad’s car crashed and “IDIOT” written on his forehead in Magic Marker.

It’s like Barney Frank slipped us a roofie.

Is there any way to uncrash Dad’s new car? My idea has its risks, but I think would be better than 9 years of a zombie economy.

What we need is for Bob and Sue’s mortgage to be $500,000, 33% below its current level of $750,000. This would restore their $50,000 in equity. We need Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. We need to make it like last night’s party never happened.

Like the solution to so many problems, it can be done but it’s not cheap. What I propose is that we buy down all residential mortgages in the US by 33%. Yup, you heard me. The total value of US residential mortgages is $11.3 trillion. So this would require $3.8 trillion. It would not be easy but it would be possible.

At the same time we would have to change the rules around mortgage lending to make sure we never did that again. We would have to establish minimum credit standards that make it much more likely that if someone borrows against a house, they’re good for it. This is what most countries do. Is it harder to buy a house in Italy than in the US? Yes. Did they have a crazy mortgage real estate bubble? No. (I can’t believe we’re taking economic lessons from freakin’ Italy. Ugggh.)

Some of this money would be a windfall to Bob and Sue. Real estate prices might decline as the market became more liquid (more people would sell because they wouldn’t fear a short sale on their house like they do now) but Bob and Sue would definitely benefit. Is that fair? Do they deserve it? Not really, I guess, but at least we get our economy back.

Smoking Laws in Seattle Parks: It Starts With Smoking, But Where Does it End?

2010-02-27T16:15:00.001-08:00

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas found that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance” and that create “zones of privacy.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 484 (1965).

Of course there is a general spirit of privacy and liberty in the Bill of Rights. And I think we can correctly surmise that the framers did not feel it necessary to enumerate every possible scenario they wanted to cover with the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is right to act and legislate in a general spirit of liberty, a value which is also celebrated in other founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence itself, proclaiming the inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

In general in the United States we celebrate the best of our way of life when we restrict one another as little as possible.

Recently, at least one non-elected official in Seattle has moved clearly against that principle. Seattle Parks Superintendent Timothy Gallagher apparently -- and I did not know this -- reigns over our parks with a god-like authority little known in modern Western government. He recently over-ruled the Board of Park Commissioners (which had recommended smoking sections in parks) and unilaterally imposed a total ban on smoking in parks because of health reasons and because it “set a bad example for children.”

I don’t think I have to point out that this, if we let it stand, is just the beginning. Is there anything you do that Timothy Gallagher might think is a bad example for children? What if there are fat people in the park? What if people in the park are eating transfats? What if people in the park look like they didn’t shower today? What if people are skipping in the park?

With the attempt to federalize healthcare we should anticipate rules and legislation on a national level outlawing more and more personal acts that may arguably in some sense impose costs on society at large. Should you pay a tax if you consume more than 2,000 calories per day or if you do not exercise in a given week? Should you require a relationship license if you have a tendency to enter into destructive relationships that leave both people needing psychiatric therapy? We will get all this and more unless we resolutely defend a zone of privacy, and unless we subject restrictions on personal behavior to a very exacting degree of scrutiny.

Gallagher’s autonomy is disconcerting. I would go so far as to say that his attitude toward governance makes him a dangerous person to have in public office. His policy is ill-considered and is characteristic of a dangerous trend among Democratic politicians to achieve a gloriously perfect world by making decisions for people. This type of law-making is un-American and dangerous and we should make sure it stays un-American.

The American tradition respects individual privacy and freedoms. Let’s keep the freedoms and throw out the Liberal nanny state politicians.

Apparently Italians Love to Convict Americans of Crimes

2010-02-24T20:24:00.000-08:00

Having convicted Amanda Knox of murder and 23 CIA agents of fighting terrorism over the past year, Italy today continued its rampage against American citizens by convicting 3 Google execs because someone uploaded a mean video to YouTube. When the Italian police asked Google to take the video down, Google did. But the Italian court decided that was not fast enough and they should never have allowed it to be posted in the first place (are they too dense to realize that would be practically impossible?).

The Google story:

The Amanda Knox story in case you haven't seen it:

This kind of vindictive xenophobia can go both ways, amici.

Let's not go to Italy any time soon. It's a riskier place than it seems.

Proposed Themes for the Republican Party in 2010-2012

2010-02-24T13:54:00.000-08:00

I have previously thrown in my $0.02 regarding things the Republican Party needs to focus on less.

I want to talk about what we should support, both in terms of what is right to support and what will help Republicans win in 2010 and 2012. I think the Economy will be issue #1 followed by Security and Immigration, and I have a few specific planks to recommend in support of these themes.

People are unhappy about the recent economic downturn. This is something we need to focus on. To win, the Republican Party needs to sell four ideas simultaneously:

To heal the economy we must heal business. Just handing out money to people or growing the government (Obama's strategy) will not solve America's problems.
The Republican Party has a plan to make businesses more successful
While still watching out for things that concern people, like economic fairness and the environment,
And not allowing the budget deficit to get out of control (like we did last time)

The essential points are two: that we won't run up the deficit again and that by healing business we can heal the economy. I believe these points can effectively be made.

What follows are specific policy ideas. As we think about policies, we need to think as if we are fighting for our lives. Because we are. We desperately need to address the distortions, mistakes and indulgences that are holding our society and our economy back.

Economy 1: Eliminate the Corporate Income Tax
Coolidge was right. The business of America really is business. All our third world relief efforts, education, help for the poor, medical care, sports programs, environmental programs, pensions, parks, schools, tenured professorships, public transportation, even protestors…everything ultimately is paid for because someone somewhere made a product or service and made a profit. The more business thrives, the more options we have. Business is what puts food on the table for everyone.

The less money the government takes out of our businesses the more money businesses have to invest in research to make our economy more competitive. Let’s lower corporate taxes.

My proposal is to eliminate the corporate tax and make the United States an international tax haven. Sounds crazy but corporate taxes only bring in 9.8% of federal receipts. We can simply shift that revenue over to the other taxes on a progressive basis such that the burden of the new income tax is allocated in proportion to each tax bracket’s likelihood of benefiting from the reduction in the corporate tax. Not only would this make our corporations more productive, it would greatly reduce corporate costs by eliminating the burden of preparing quarterly tax reports, and it would attract considerable investment from foreign corporations looking for a secure tax haven.

Eliminating the corporate income tax would be much more impactful than reducing it to a nominal rate because a complete elimination by definition eliminates the work that goes into preparing taxes. Even if the rate is miniscule you still have to file a return and figure out all the deductions, etc. It is a huge burden whatever the rate.

At the end of the day, it is people who get and spend money, who benefit from corporations, so why don’t we just simplify things and stick with one tax -- the tax on the people (as much as it pains me to say that, it makes sense in this context).

Economy 2: Switch from the Personal Income Tax to a National Sales Tax
This is an idea with some bipartisan support actually (though when Democrats advocate a sales tax or a VAT they usually intend it to be additive to the income tax). Taxes create disincentives. Our current tax system reduces incentives to earn money. This makes the economy smaller. A Sales Tax creates disincentives to spend money but does not punish making money or saving money. We need people to save more money. Eliminating the personal income tax would substantially reduce the burden of preparing taxes for individuals ad S-Corporations. See Rudolph Penner’s paper for lengthier discussion here.

Economy 3: Fix our broken trade relationship with Asia
See previous analysis here.

Economy 4: Make Life Less Complicated for Businesses -- Start by Ending Sarbanes-Oxley
This is simple. We need to eliminate any regulations that cost more than they are worth. I will start with one: Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley requires US firms to file various onerous reports with the government about their financial controls and reporting. It costs US businesses billions of wasted dollars per year and discourages foreign firms from listing in US stock exchanges. We need to reduce red tape for US businesses and we should start with this over-reaction to the Enron scandal.

Economy 5: Reduce the burden of securities lawsuits by creating a special process for securities lawsuits
The cost of raising capital is increased dramatically by the prospect of class action securities lawsuits that allege fraud whenever companies disappoint investors. This is a ridiculous indulgence. Few of the companies that get sued actually ever committed any fraud. They typically pay off the class action lawyers to avoid an expensive trial. It’s a big business for the lawyers but a difficult burden for US business, especially younger businesses. Congress under Article I can designate special courts and procedures for special subjects, granting them "subject matter jurisdiction," as was done for bankruptcy cases. This should be done for securities lawsuits, such that there would be federal securities courts whose proceedings are much like an administrative hearing or arbitration than a full jury trial. The goal should be to speedily, at minimum cost, resolve any allegations and only proceed to a larger case when plaintiffs show that theirs is a case of deceit by a criminal organization and not a mere error or oversight on the part of a well intentioned company. In the case of an oversight, there would be no damages.

Economy 6: Instead of increasing SBA loans, invest in Venture Funds
Obama is putting another $30B into SBA loans and he thinks this will help fund startups. It is sad how little he knows about business. No start ups get SBA loans. Certainly not the ones that create real value, like say Google or Amazon.com. Real technology ventures take equity in their early stages. If we are going to help business along, we should invest in venture funds. Here’s the other good part: we will get the money back and then some.

Economy 7: Balance the Budget
Republicans have for years advocated for low taxes and we have always wound up with high deficits. This rhetoric doesn't work anymore, and accounts for a lot of the Tea Party fervor. We need to make the case that we will achieve a balanced budget. This means we must reform Medicare and Social Security and make tough choices in doing so. I think we should start with Mark Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future.

Economy 8: Reduce the Burden of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

Malpractice lawsuits are a large part of our growing health care cost problem. There are two types of damages in malpractice cases, compensation for costs and punitive damages. The punitive damages are a large part of the total cost of malpractice claims. Punitive damages at the end of the day do not restore the health or costs of the plaintiff and serve, in theory, only to make the world safer by changing the behavior of doctors, both the specific doctor before the court and other doctors. There are easier ways to achieve this.

I propose that the government should handle claims of medical negligence in administrative hearings. If negligence can be established, actual cost damages can be assessed plus some allowance for the plaintiff's legal costs. If negligence is extreme, the government, instead of assessing punitive damages, can take action against the accused doctor's license and/or subject the doctor to criminal proceedings in the rare case where that would be appropriate. It is possible that in the case of extreme negligence some sort of whistle blower reward could be established for claimants. However, that would be much cheaper than punitive damages. Moving against a doctor's license would be a significant disincentive for bad behavior, but a much, much cheaper one than the one we have today.

Issues That Are Not Strictly Economic in Nature

Immigration
Immigration of skilled workers, i.e. doctors and engineers, should be open. It is a tremendous gift to us when the most skilled workers from other countries come to contribute their knowledge to our economy. Immigration of unskilled workers, on the other hand, is a corrupt bargain between the wealthy, who want low wage workers, and Democrats, who want reliable voters. Who gets the short end of the stick? Low skilled Americans, and that disrupts our society. The burdens of low skilled Americans are quite sufficient without having to compete against people who grew up with even lower expectations. The American poor should not be ground into the dust, as they have been, by this corrupt bargain. We must take a stand for skilled immigrants and against low skill immigrants. There was a time when we needed low skill workers -- or whatever workers we could get. That moment in history has passed.

In addition to reducing immigration of low skill workers, we should assert our right to make cultural choices in selecting types of immigrants to the US. Inevitably, if we change the cultural mix of our citizenry we will change the nature of our culture. Since culture is so profoundly important to the life of any society, it is not wrong or racist, indeed it is wise and essential, to express cultural preferences in managing the evolving makeup of our citizenry. The reality is that if we wanted the USA to be more like a given other country, the easiest way to accomplish that would be to import a large number of people from that country. At one point in history we believed that people were generic and fungible, and they would over time, perhaps generations, embrace the successful American culture that we enjoy and hope to preserve. But the advocates of multiculturalism and of racial grievance politics have shown quite clearly that we should not count on any melting pot effect. Therefore, we should ask ourselves whether there are any groups that -- given that there is no melting pot -- culturally might tend to push our nation in an unwelcome direction. The experience of our European allies suggests that any large influx of Islamic immigrants from the Middle East, Pakistan or Northern Africa would be extremely undesirable and should simply be disallowed. Immigrants from Europe, Australia, Korea, China, India and certain islands in the West Indies have been our most successful immigrant groups. Their immigration should be prioritized over others.

Security 1: Recognize That Our Conflict with Islamic Jihad is a War
The number one issue internationally is Islamic Jihad. We can effectively attack Democratic policies of political correctness that reduce our ability to be effective in the War on Terror.

Trying to handle Islamic warriors as regular domestic criminals is silly and naive and people rightly oppose it. Trying to cover up Islamic terrorist activities such as the attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood (the government report on the attack did not mention his Islamic views) is a huge mistake. The Obama administration and all democrats are deservedly vulnerable on this issue.

Security 2: Energy independence
Energy independence is part of security. Some portion of every dollar we send to Saudi Arabia for oil comes back as a roadside bomb. Replacing gasoline and jet fuel with a realistic alternative (not wind power, but natural gas and nuclear) should be the next American Manhattan Project.

Security 3: The F-35 Fighter Program
With respect to other nations, such as Russia, we must take a more firm stance. Obama tried to follow his liberal instincts and befriend Iran and Russia. Didn’t work. They are as hostile as they were before. China is developing an advanced fighter. You never know what is going to happen in the future. It is better to be safe than sorry. We need to ramp up F-35 production, which Obama recently cut back.

Do our sartorial choices have political significance?

2010-02-20T23:40:00.001-08:00

I have been traveling quite a bit recently around the country and I have been thinking about the change in attire that has taken place over the last few decades. The 1960’s brought us an unpretentious, anti-hierarchical ethos that came to be expressed in casual clothing and an indulgence in decoration for men, including long hair, facial hair and ear rings. It has been an interesting experiment for forty years or so. On the whole, honestly, I have concluded we are not doing ourselves any aesthetic favors.

The significance of attire

Does it matter? If in 2020, bearded and tattooed men with a BMI of 42 are commonly to be found strolling through airports wearing man thongs and butt chaps, should we care? Am I simply having a nostalgic moment for the “Mad Men” days of my youth where men in suits and ties would fly Pan Am to New York attended by sharp looking and “with it” stewardesses? Well, of course I am. But beyond my personal nostalgia let me make the case to you that this subject matters to us all.

How we dress is important because it is one of the most important ways in which we influence one another. Societies have always invested in buildings, obelisks, pyramids and totem poles because aesthetic symbols, like national anthems, are an important way to make a collective statement about our most important values. Aesthetic statements in architecture, art and attire communicate directly to the heart about what is important and how we should live. The formidable edifices of Berlin’s Reichstagsgebäude or Rome’s Coliseum served as local propaganda to reinforce the grandeur and permanence of those empires. The unpretentiousness of a New England chapel instills in parishioners values of simplicity and humility just as surely as the Pearl Tower in Shanghai reinforces values of modernity, efficiency and the unbridled ambition of modern Asia. As Walter Pater said: “All art ...aspires towards the condition of music”; I would argue that architecture and attire, in the directness of their communication, achieve it.

Attire and grooming are the democratic version of architecture. We do not communicate directly with each other much as a body politic. We drive in cars, listen to iPods, cast secret ballots and kind of keep to ourselves. We consume ideas spoken by people on TV or writers in newspapers (or blogs?) and we might discuss them with a few friends. But we don’t generally communicate with one another -- except with our personal aesthetic choices. Our choices in attire and presentation are political and cultural statements we make to each other every day. Collectively, they are significant because aesthetic statements are not just “I am” statements; they are also inevitably “you should” statements as well. People in societies have always learned from each other -- and taught each other -- in this way.

It has been shown in policework famously in New York in the Giuliani era (see book discussed here), that visible symbols in a society’s public spaces make a big difference. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and head of the New York City Transit Police William Bratton determined to reduce visible symbols of vandalism in the transit system, especially graffiti. Graffiti is a public statement that “the law is not in charge here.” It is an attack on the security and sense of order of citizens generally, and that is its point. Giuliani and Bratton’s campaign against graffiti is observed to have been very effective in substantially reducing crime in New York. The symbols of a society make a big difference to the people who live there and our personal presentation is one of the key ways we have the opportunity every day to influence those symbols.

How we dress

So what ideas are we Americans commonly communicating in our attire and presentation? I hope you will tolerate my frankness.

Firstly, I would observe that we are quite portly. Just eyeballing it, I think about 75% of us could lose at least 20-30 pounds. If you are 30 pounds overweight it suggests, intentionally or otherwise, that you think that society should value indulgence over discipline, ambition and industry. That is not something we should be suggesting to each other.

The second issue concerns the clothing. In this context I primarily address men over 30. The sports coat, collared shirt and, in appropriate situations, the tie were adopted over time because they make men look good. The general alternative to the collared shirt and sports shirt is the t-shirt. Its strength is its lack of pretention. But make no mistake, not one man in ten can carry off a t-shirt with dignity.

Long hair, facial hair, ear rings for men and tattoos -- you are trying too hard and lack self-confidence.

In this, my little Dante’s Inferno of modern men’s attire, the lowest rung of sartorial hell must be reserved for the sports costume, by which I refer to all possible combinations of billed caps, shirts with numbers on them, sports logos and other people’s names as well as large rubber-soled shoes. You know what I’m talking about. It is really horrible.

Wearing another man’s jersey says that you are his girlfriend. Do not wear another man’s jersey. Or, if you do, you should write, above his name, “I am,” then put an apostrophe on his name and below his name write “prison gf :).” Congratulations.

Wearing a baseball hat, which is quite common, is a way for men to dissociate themselves from any type of intellectual activity, i.e. it is a way of saying “I am not bright but I don’t care.” The rise of the baseball cap has been coincident with -- and I think related to -- the attacks on men by the forces of feminism for the past thirty years, including the many depictions of bumbling dads in primetime comedies. This has influenced men. Wearing a baseball hat when you go out in public is a way of surrendering to this attack and saying “you needn’t fear my oppression, ladies. I am not going to give you intellectual competition.” It is the dunce cap and the hair shirt of the battle of the sexes. I am not against the fair and judicious principles of feminism but I am against the anti-male rhetoric and anti-male strategies that come with it. It does not help society to don the dunce cap and cede all thinking to others. In fact, it is important you find some self-respect and resist this.

Implications

I think the explanation for the low standards of dress we have adopted is that morale is low in our society. After years of multicultural, victimization and feminist rhetoric, there is a state of disunity, unhappiness and low morale about the republic.

Americans are the people who built this nation, articulated enduring principles of freedom and government, conquered Hitler, conquered Hirohito, shaped the modern economy and met the challenge of the West with, in the words of Samuel Walter Foss, “Men to match my mountains.” That blood is still here in America. But the spirit of this proud people has been attacked for forty years. The aesthetic statements people are making are collectively a sort of surrender to the tireless critiques of the left, the European socialists, the victimization demagogues, Howard Zinn fans and generally all the hippies and vindictive fellow travelers who hate America for its mistakes more than they love it for its virtues or for the fact that it has brought more freedom and wealth and security -- more good -- to more people than any nation in history.

So that’s why I think it matters, and that is why I think that if we don’t pull our socks up for ourselves or our spouses or our kids, we should do it for our country.

Why I am not a Tea Partier

2010-02-20T18:07:00.000-08:00

In theory, I should be a great candidate to be a Tea Partier. I am fiscally conservative. I am very reluctant to create new government-supported entitlements. I am very annoyed at the Republicans for the large deficits of the W. Bush years. I even voted for Perot for president and I voted for fiscally conservative Steve Forbes in the 1996 primary, so I am relatively open minded to “off brand” political products.

So why am I not a Tea Partier?

Third parties are a bad idea. Perot got Clinton elected. Nader got Bush elected. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt got Woodrow Wilson elected in 1912.
I am suspicious of overly emotional movements without a strong theoretical base. I don’t mind some emotion but if a movement consists of a bunch of political neophytes with an unclear platform and emotional, rabble rousing leaders, I become concerned. The Tea Party appears to be hesitant to declare an explicit platform and I think it is because they are scared that if they did they would fall apart. The conservative movement was helped greatly by the groundwork laid down by William F. Buckley and Russel Kirk years before Reagan's 1980 victory.
I think the best plan for 2010 is to support moderate republican candidates. What does “moderate” mean. Well, I can tell you it doesn’t mean supporting cap and trade, card check or Obamacare. If you support any of those in my view you are a Democrat and you should come out of the closet. A moderate Republican, to me, is basically someone who wants to cut taxes and balance the budget, is willing to put everything on the table (Medicare, Social Security, overseas defense commitments) but is not going to campaign on divisive social issues like abortion or gun control. I think abortion could be a huge blocker for Republicans in 2010 and 2012.

It is hilarious though how everyone believes that whatever they and their friends talk about represents some sort of universal consensus. Dan Riehl, with whom I would probably agree on a lot of things, says (here) of Orrin Hatch, who is discouraging Tea people from trying to organize a Perot-style third party flub up for 2012, “Hatch doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on at street level in America today.” Hmm. Really? Well I do know that Scott Brown was pretty moderate, I do know that Perot was huge disaster and I basically think Hatch is giving great advice.

Is the Obama administration dangerously naïve about Islam?

2010-02-15T19:12:00.000-08:00

If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win a hundred battles without a loss.
If you know yourself but not your opponent, you may win or lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always face defeat.
- Sun Tzu

We are still very much in danger from terrorist attacks. While we are not at war with Islam in general, we are at war with a large Islamist underground who supply money, expertise and soldiers to a global effort to undermine the West. When the next terrorist attack comes to the US, it will come from an Islamist terrorist backed by an Islamist organization providing materiel, training and financing for the operation. This could be another 9/11 or it could be something more like the recent Mumbai attacks involving commando teams with small arms. In any case, it is coming our way.

It used to be that to kill 3,000 people on an enemy’s soil would take an army of perhaps 5,000 people as well as a fleet to get them there. The kill ratio might be roughly one to one, or less. In suicide bomber attacks one often sees a ratio of at least 20:1. On 9/11, using technology, 19 people killed 3,000, which is about a 150:1 kill ratio.

As people get more effective and smaller weapons, this ratio will go up. As miniaturization evolves, it becomes dangerous to have people who hate you amongst you. Whereas we used to have to worry about armies, now we have to face the difficult and new task of worrying about individuals, which is tougher. Miniaturization of weapons creates a whole new world.

To some extent the right approach to the miniaturization problem depends on our tolerance for risk. Do we want it to be 80% probable that life in the United States can continue in a reasonably peaceful manner for the next 100 years? 50%? 99.99%? If your answer is 50% then perhaps we are doing the right thing. But if we want to secure life in America as we know it for an indefinite period of time to a very very high likelihood, we will have to something now or we wait until the next attack occurs and do it then. Success depends on understanding Islamic peoples and being able to make accurate predictions about their future behavior.

It is not perhaps reasonable in order to set some context to note here that in many majority-Muslim nations, being an advocate of violence against the West is no more a “fringe” or “extremist” view than, say, being opposed to the death penalty is in the United States. In 2009, 54% of Nigerians, 52% of people in the Palestinian territories, 28% of Jordanians and 23% of Egyptians, were “confident” in Osama bin Laden’s leadership. 67% of Nigerians believed that suicide bombing against civilians is sometimes justified; 83% of people in the Palestinian territories agree, as do 48% of Egyptians, 44% of Jordanians and 26% of Turks. (These numbers are from the Pew Global Research Study, which can be found here. Apparently they didn’t go to Saudi Arabia.) When we talk about Islamic “extremists” we may be soothing ourselves with semantics. Believing in terrorism in the Muslim world is not a non-mainstream point of view. I am not trying to agitate, but I don’t want to whitewash the situation either. You might want to remind yourself how 9/11 was received on the streets of the Palestinian Territories:

I write this concededly unpleasant essay because I am concerned that the Obama administration’s view may be too rosy, indeed misguided, and his olive branch policies a waste of time, at best, and dangerous at worst. It is important to be fact-based and not just hopeful in determining what Arab nations actually want, who, in a sense, they are. Are we basing our foreign policy strategy on realism? I think it is quite debatable.

The Administration’s View of Islam
President Obama has a very sympathetic view of Islam. He wants to put to rest the multi-century conflict between the West and Islam by being pleasant and focusing on things we have in common. Obama believes that Islam is ready to make friends and he is relying on that assumption in devising his strategy for peace.

Obama’s core belief, in general not just with respect to Islam, seems to be that people are naturally good, they share underlying goals with us, but they sometimes are misinformed; a good chat, akin to the Beer Summit or the upcoming healthcare summit, is all it should take to set people straight. His instinct is, essentially, to play “community organizer” to the world. I am not saying that with a sneer. I am just trying to accurately describe what he does.

The trouble with this view and approach is that it does not work well in certain cases. Specifically, it does not work well when your fundamental premise is wrong and you are dealing with people with whom you do not share fundamental values. For instance, in dealing with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain found that reconciliation was the wrong approach. It was the wrong approach in dealing with the Soviet Union. It is the wrong approach whenever people actually have fundamentally incompatible views and goals.

So what is Obama saying? In Egypt 9 months ago, Obama said:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

He also said that “faith should bring us together.”

On February 14, 2010, Hillary Clinton rearticulated Obama’s views at the US-Islamic Summit at Doha saying that “our shared purpose and values have often been obscured by suspicion and misunderstanding.”

Since many in the Islamic world do not share this rosy view of co-prosperity with the Judeo-Christian West, this is explained away in the Obama-Clinton interpretation as being the product of poverty (i.e., it is not that they are different from us, it is that they are temporarily confused). As Clinton said at the US-Islamic summit:

True and lasting security takes root in places where people have the opportunity to find jobs, to be educated, to raise healthy families, and benefit from the scientific and technological breakthroughs that have transformed the way we live in the 21st century. When these opportunities are absent, frustration and anger often follow.

The initial Liberal line on 9/11 was that America had to sympathize with the terrorists because they were poor, indeed that poverty caused them to do what they did and it was to some extent our fault because we don’t contribute more to development in poor countries. Remember? (Overview here ; David Corn discusses here.) Well as it turned out, many of the hijackers of 9/11 and many of the major Islamic terrorists after them have been at least middle class, the more educated members of their societies who could learn English, get degrees and study in Western universities. So Liberals for the most part put away that somewhat embarrassingly wrong poverty-causes-terrorism theory. But sometimes they still return to it anyway because it just fits much better with their worldview. It’s too convenient to resist.

So the question at hand is whether it is fair to say, as Obama did in Egypt, that “faith should bring us together.” Should it? That might be a quite suitable remark if we were at war with Italy, given that nation’s catholic background, but is it a totally unrealistic remark about Islam? We have to ask ourselves, what if Islamists are more violent and antagonistic, less motivated by temporary political issues of the moment and less similar to us than Obama believes? What would our strategy be if we had to find a way to live together not because of our shared values but in spite of our radically different values? Would we be doing things differently then? Because that may be the case.

Let’s keep in mind as we investigate this issue that our primary job is to create a great future for Americans, not to be polite. So I am going to walk through this in an honest way, not in a polite way necessarily. What do we know about the Islamic world?

Do we share a purpose and values with Islam?
When you see a man leading his three black-shrouded wives down the streets of London (interesting video here), does he strike you as someone who probably “share[s] common principles about tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” with the people of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Do you imagine he reads Jefferson and longs for a perfect democracy of yeoman farmers? Do we think a society that believes in stoning an adulterous woman to death, and which held Hitler in much higher regard than it will ever hold Obama, shares principles with us?

Before you answer, you might want to watch this recent and somewhat randomly selected slice of Egyptian popular culture, a boy lecturing about children’s love of martyrdom in the name of Allah. No that’s fine. Do it. I will be here when you get back.

How like us are they? It is interesting that Mohammed, unlike Abraham, Moses or Jesus Christ, was a military leader, which lends Islam a somewhat different character fundamentally than Judaism and Christianity. Imagine if we followed a religion that had been created by Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan or Napoleon Bonaparte. It would be different. You might have noted that the Saudi flag has a sword on it. That’s no mistake, brother.
Indeed war is fundamental in the history and the language of Islam. In Arabic the term for Islamic countries is dar al Islam, “the house of Islam” (or “peace”) and the term for non-Islamic countries is dar al harb, “the house of war.” Islam was created circa 620 AD and grew through a brutal military campaign, mass slavery and forced conversions to become a tremendous empire emerging from the Saudi desert to encompass all of North Africa, Spain, Turkey and much of the Balkans. Islam and the “house of war” were most of the time at war or on the cusp of war from the early medieval period to the end of World War II. Samuel Huntington pointed out, Islam has “bloody borders.”

Islam appears, at the least, to be very susceptible to a very bellicose interpretation. As I suppose one could say that about any religion except you would really be exaggerating; I can’t recall any Buddhist or Hindu terrorists recently whereas there are Muslim terrorists wherever there are Muslims.

Theologically, Islam is the one religion that has not in the modern era developed a sense of its own limitations. Most religions have reconciled themselves to the notion that they are not going to convert everyone in the world, that people will come to diverse conclusions on religious matters and the issue is sufficiently in doubt that religion should not be imposed on individuals. Mainstream Islam has come to no such conclusion. Islam, particularly Wahabbist Islam, remains an absolutist and totalitarian creed with no concessions to diversity of religious opinion. The goal of spreading Islam around the world through education, proselytizing and simple demographics is explicit in Saudi Arabia and billions of dollars have been spent to that end. It is to this day illegal to celebrate Christmas in Saudi Arabia, even after we pulled their fat from the fire with Desert Shield.

Politically, Islamic countries have made very interesting choices. Germany, in World War I, enjoyed the staunch support of the Islamic world. In World War II, Hitler was extremely popular among our current Middle Eastern “allies.” In the Cold War, the major Middle Eastern countries were quite friendly toward the Soviet Union. Stalin was very almost as popular as Hitler in the Middle East generally. They have a real knack for picking the good guys.

There are in Islamic countries no strong traditions of art or literature because these activities are discouraged as un-Islamic. Men marry up to four wives. Women are not allowed to drive. It is perhaps impossible to imagine a society this side of the Klingons whose instincts appear more different from ours.

So, taking this all in, is it sensible to assume that the natural character of Islam is very much like that of Judaism and Christianity, the cultures, history and leaders of which are less directly associated with war and war-like notions than those of Islam? That we share fundamental premises and goals?

In the least charitable interpretation of Islam, but one that cannot absolutely be controverted by facts, one could interpret it as an imperialist, militarist ideology fundamentally incompatible with Christianity (or with the secular, individualistic notions of the Western Enlightenment) that is bent on extending its domain over the world through whatever means necessary including military action, ideological propaganda and demographic takeovers. It could be interpreted as being more akin to Nazism than to Christianity.

Do we know that this is an unfair and uncharitable interpretation? For sure? Because if we do not know this is wrong, then we have to act as if it might be right. I am not going to say that Muslims are all one way or all another way. Any such assertion would be absurd. But it does seem to me that there is a lot we do not know about Islam but they do, en masse, seem to have a troubling and unusual inclination toward suppressing freedom and promoting brutality and violence. And many of them dislike the kafir (unbelievers).

Implications if we lack shared values
If we fundamentally do not share values and are in some ways incompatible and doomed never to live in harmony; or, if we think this could be true, how would we hedge our bets? This I do not know. I will propose some ideas below in the spirit of whiteboarding. But I believe that we need to devise policies that would make less optimistic assumptions than the ones the administration is making.

Some ideas:
Idea 1: Impose a “terrorism tax” on Islamic countries?
The West now spends a great deal of money defending against terrorism, whether in the form of law enforcement, intelligence, military operations in Afghanistan or extra security at home. The Islamic countries should bear this economic burden because they export it. We have essentially an ongoing tort claim against them. Whether they have directly sponsored the terrorism, as in the case of Libya, Syria and Iran, or their citizens are funding the terrorism as is the case in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, they are ultimately responsible on a res ipsa loquitur basis.

If there were pro-Western, pro-democracy or pro-vengeance militias from the US, funded out of the US, who were travelling to the Middle East and blowing people up, it would to some extent be our fault and our responsibility. We would legitimately owe the Middle Eastern countries some sort of redress. So Option 1 would involve a tax on the Middle Eastern countries forcing them to bear the full economic burden of Islamic terrorism on the West. These monies would be distributed to Western nations in proportion to their expenditures on anti-terrorist efforts. The goal of this program would be to internalize the cost of tolerating or promoting an intolerant, bellicose ideology back on its originators and encourage them thereby to change their ways and do more at home to prevent their people from exporting violence abroad.

Idea 2: Religion or not, can we manage the spread of Islam in the US more deliberately?
We wish to protect against terrorism, we observe that Muslims have a greater tendency than others to become terrorists and we know that it cannot be determined until one acts whether a given individual is inclined to be a terrorist or not. Imagine if some percent of, say, Bulgarians unpredictably developed a horrible disease that caused them to explode and kill everyone around them (which is kind of what happened with Major Hasan). We would change the rules regarding naturalization of Bulgarians who are here already. The TSA recently announced that if you have been to one of 14 (predominantly Muslim) countries on a given trip, you will be given extra scrutiny if you wish to fly into the US. This was done despite the fact that it will offend some of our Muslim friends. This is probably necessary. But why confine it to a given trip? Why not give people special treatment if they have ever been to one of those countries? People might say they are being singled out unfairly, but it wouldn’t be unfair. It would be based on quite objective data.

If we took this approach of trying to be careful about admitting Muslims to the US, it would essentially be a matter of agreeing to live in peace with the Islamic nations, but apart. It’s not that we have ill will toward each other necessarily but it might be for the best if we do not live together.

Option 3: We could do something we haven’t thought of yet
This is where you come in.

Option 4: Pretend the Muslims are a peaceful people who like us, and hope for the best
This last approach seems risky.

A smart discussion of Paul Ryan's plan for the US budget from the Cato Institute

2010-02-14T17:01:00.001-08:00

A good proposal that should be getting more attention.

2010 Political Honor Roll and Hall of Fame

2010-02-14T16:36:00.000-08:00

Not all of these people are strictly speaking conservative in every way but they are always worth listening to and they have made and make our political culture stronger. I have generally excluded major world figures outside of the US and Commonwealth tradition as well as religious figures and sports figures. So if you are wondering why John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Gandhi, Elvis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Mother Theresa and Jesus Christ are not on the list, that is why.

Active Politicians

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Tom Campbell
Dick Cheney
Newt Gingrich
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Active Commentators

William Kristol
Fred Barnes
Michael Barone
Bruce Bawer
Christopher Buckley
Clive Crook
Ross Douthat
Michael Gerson
Charles Krauthammer
Peggy Noonan
P.J. O'Rourke
Dennis Prager
John Stossel
George Will

Scholars and Judges

Samuel Alito
David Brinkley
Samuel Huntington
Harvey S. Mansfield
Edmund Phelps
Richard Posner
Antonio Scalia
Thomas Sowell
James Q. Wilson

Hall of Fame
(Emeritus and In memoriam, and in no particular order)

Ronald Reagan
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Margaret Thatcher
Barry Goldwater
John Locke
F.A. Hayek
George Orwell
Aldous Huxley
Edmund Burke
Niccolo Machiavelli
Aristotle
Thomas Paine
Adam Smith
Alexander Hamilton
Milton Friedman
Leo Strauss
Alan Bloom
George H.W. Bush
Alan Dulles
Harry Truman
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Harry S. Truman
Dean Acheson
Averill Harriman
Lloyd Bentsen

Can we please not make Patty Murray the world's second luckiest Senator?

2010-02-13T16:12:00.000-08:00

Patty Murray is a mediocre Senator. I don't think anyone disagrees with that honestly. I suspect, among friends, you know, she might even cop to it herself. She reminds me of someone. Oh, that's right. It's the mediocre, stridently partisan senator I was just writing about -- Barbara Boxer. Oh, no their personalities are not much alike. But Boxer is the luckiest person in the Senate (details here) and Murray would like to be the next luckiest!

My previous article (what, you haven't read it? shame on you) pointed out that Barbara Boxer has earned a long career in the Senate by knocking out lightweights. Patty Murray has gone up against the following contenders:
- Rod Chandler
- Linda Smith, who focused unrelistically on the Choice issue, and
- George R. ("I know I have no chance") Nethercutt, Jr.

Who?

Against Chandler in 1992, it was the "year of the woman" in the Senate, the year of Clinton-Gore and the previous senator, Brock Adams, stepped down due to sexual abuse charges. This was the right place, right time for Murray.

In 1998, Linda Smith was not very dynamic and focused on a sure loser issue, abortion.

In 2004, Nethercutt...well, Washington hasn't elected a senator from east of the Cascades since Miles Poindexter in 1916. Yes, Miles Poindexter.So let's leave it at that.

Murray has faced mediocre challengers generally under favorable circumstances. She could be vulnerable to a strong challenger in 2010.

However, that person has not emerged yet. A lot of nice and well-meaning people have emerged, but no stars. There's Art Coday, a real life doctor who talks too much about the Civil War and abortion (but he did go to Harvard -- go Harvard!). There's a guy who used to play pro-football. There's Chris Widener, a motivational speaker who seems like a nice guy but just, uhmmm not to be rude but, at this stage I don't think has enough heft to make it into the senate. There's a guy named Bob Denton -- oops, I think it's Don Benton -- who has apparently been in the state legislature and who was briefly the head of the state Republican Party before everyone realized he is hard to get along with. On the plus side, Benton is the spitting image of the Mayor of Munchkinland from the 1939 Wizard of Oz. It's really weird. So that's good...

California has recruited Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell and Meg Whitman to run this year. Those people have heft. They are stars. They have done important things. Where is our star?

One challenge in Washington is that Republicans don't get elected much here, certainly not near Seattle. So Republicans don't have the kind of candidates who often succeed in other states, who, let's say, have been in Congress for ten years and who have some statewide name recognition.

OK so where will our stars come from? I think the strong candidates will have to come from Seattle's business community. Most high tech business people are Dems but if someone with star power and heft is going to give Dems a run for their money in state-wide offices, it is going to have to be, in my opinion, someone from business, like a Mitt Romney or even a Maria Cantwell who was at Real.

Who is that person? Whoever it is, I hope they step forward soon!

Is Barbara Boxer the world's luckiest Senator?

2010-02-13T15:12:00.000-08:00

In politics, like life in general, luck can be a factor. For most people it is not the most important factor, but random things happen that can cut for or against people. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has been a bit lucky. Ironically, Monica Lewinsky is the best thing that could have happened to Hillary career-wise. It transformed geeky and strident Hillary into a vulnerable and human person, and she might not have had a political career without it. She was also lucky when Rudy Giuliani pulled out of her first Senate race to leave Rick Lazio as her challenger.

Nita Lowey on the other hand, is unlucky. She probably would have been the Democratic candidate to replace Daniel Patrick Moynihan, rest his soul, in 2000. What are the odds that some random super celebrity from freakin' Arkansas would pop into the state and become the front runner for the Senate seat that was practically already hers?!?!? Well, stuff happens as they say. (Or...what is it they say? I know I'm close...)

Through amazing luck, Barbara Boxer has never faced a high quality opponent in her political career. Boxer has run against:
- Unrealistically conservative, scandal-plagued and ogresque Bruce Herschenson (won by 5)
- Matt "I have no charisma" Fong (won by 10) and
- Former California Secretary of State, Bill "Plain-as-my-name" Jones (won by 20)

You remember them, right??

Well, I suspect her luck has run out. Carly Fiorina has some star power. She ran a major company and she seems human and vulnerable because of her cancer scare. She is formidable. Tom Campbell was a respected congressman, he is politically moderate, he is substantive (a former professor at Stanford Law) and is well-regarded in California. I think against either candidate Boxer's campaigning weaknesses will be exposed and she will lose decisively in 2010. The one way the California Republican Party could keep Boxer's lucky streak going would be by nominating Chuck Devore, who is basically Bruce Herschenson II. He would lose by 10. Fiorina or Campbell, either one, will win by at least five.

Gosh if she's that lucky maybe we should keep her?

Naah...

The Panic! Industry: Why Global Warming skepticism is rational

2010-02-08T23:16:00.000-08:00

To the young, all issues and crises are new and unprecedented. To those of us who have been around a bit longer, you do begin to see patterns. One of these patterns is that every few years there comes along a tremendous crisis promoted by the media that threatens the world and demands immediate action. If we do not immediately respond, we will die, many innocents will die, we will all become unhealthy or the world as we know it will cease to be, or all of the above. Often (but not always) there is a moral component to the issue. It is caused by our sinfulness or is ignored only because of our complete moral debasement.

I am referring of course to global warming, global cooling, silicone breast implants, acid rain, Y2K, cancer-causing saccharin, low fat diets, the pandemic of homelessness in the 80s and the nonexistent heterosexual AIDS pandemic.

All of these things and many others I have forgotten or which were before my time, were to have destroyed the world and essentially came to nothing. It is very interesting that we apparently do not learn the lesson that we should be more skeptical.

Why do these things occur? Mostly because everyone we rely on to tell us what is going on is motivated to create a sense of crisis. I am referring of course to the media, the scientists and politicians. The media know that you will buy more papers, look at more web pages and watch more news on the TV if you are alarmed. Politicians know that if they can get on the right side of a crisis and "own the issue," they can raise more money and gain more loyal followers. Scientists are perhaps the most corrupt of all. They have devoted themselves to a certain field of study and by the time they are old enough to have a mortgage they realize that their prestige and finances depend largely on convincing everyone that their field of study is hugely important. Sadly, no one has a vested interest in debunking alarmist theories about the future, plus one feels like a bit of a party pooper to do so at all. People like their apocalyptic crises.

I can recall in the late 80s speaking with certain scientists at Harvard Medical School about the impending AIDs pandemic. If they could have convinced everyone that there was going to be a real pandemic, they would raise a lot of money for their school and for their own labs and projects. That's their bread and butter so they were highly motivated. Of course, as it turns out, AIDs has remained a niche disease with absolutely no relevance to the mainstream heterosexual, reasonably chaste, drug-free American.

Crises that attract fewer than three of the key manipulator groups (media, politicians, scientists) become less popular and have less staying power. Therefore Y2K didn't get quite as famous as Global Warming.

Global Warming is the king of them all because it promises goodness for all three camps, the media, politicians and scientists. It involves apocalyptic consequences, a major dose of moral disapproval and has the potential to direct plenteous grants into the coffers of universities until the very apocalypse it presages. The issue came to the fore at a particularly good time for the Democratic Party as, having abandoned welfare as a theme in the mid-90's and observing the decline of broad support for their pro-organized union message, they were very much looking for an issue to campaign on. Something that would really excite people with a fiery fervor! Global warming came just in time for them. In all it has the potential to be the ultimate corrupt bargain. Recently the proponents of Global Warming have tried to reposition their story around the term "Climate Change" so that they no longer have to stand behind predictions about anything other than the notion that the weather is likely to vary.

People are skeptical about global warming because the people who are promoting global warming have an investment in convincing everyone that it exists. Under those circumstances, it is sensible to be skeptical of any claims in its favor. Being skeptical of course does not mean that one will not under any circumstances believe it. After all, some crises, such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis, actually turn out to be real. But skepticism does require us, when we are told about a new apocalyptic crisis, to require proof and look at who is ringing the alarm before we believe.

The recent embarrassing revelations about data manipulation in Climategate make the case even stronger.

How long does it take for the Dems to adopt GOP policies? About 20 years usually

2010-02-08T09:36:00.000-08:00

The GOP's image is divorced from its reality. Many people seem to believe that the GOP is the party of the wealthy, of monied interests plotting in board rooms and country clubs. I don't see it that way at all, voting patterns don't support that and policies don't support that. To understand how Republicans think of the Republican Party, and how I think the Republican Party should be understood, I think you have to look at it as the party of ideas. The Democratic Party certainly seems to think so, since that appears to be where they get all their new ideas. It seems to take about 20 years for the Dems to adopt republican insights.

The Democratic Party for many years has been focused on the set of policies laid out and partially implemented by President Johnson as the Great Society. Their loyalty to forcible wealth redistribution and strengthening unions has been strong. Therefore they haven't been the party of new ideas. They have ideas, but all of them would be entirely recognizable by John Dewey.

Republicans having been out of power for so long became the party of new ideas in the 70s and searched for new ways to accomplish societal goals, orienting themselves toward developing new solutions.

As Obama said in the 2008 campaign, “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.” (link)

What are we talking about?

Nuclear power
Republican idea: 1975
Democratic adoption: 2010 (Obama SOTU speech)
Time for Dems to catch up: 35 years

Welfare Reform
Republican Idea: 1975
Democratic adoption: 1996 (Clinton, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act)
Time for Dems to catch up: 21 years

Teacher incentive pay
Republican idea: 1985
Democratic adoption: 2009 (Arne Duncan)
Time for Dems to catch up: 24 years

It is possible that the Republicans should not be labeled "conservative," as it is the Republicans who appear to be innovating and the Democrats who seem to be the conservative supporters of the old ways.

New GOP entrant bidding to oust Patty Murray

2010-02-08T08:39:00.000-08:00

Seattle times story is here. State Senator and former chairman of the state Republican Party Don Benton is entering the race to oppose Patty Murray and try to become the West Coast Scott Brown. Six others have thrown their hat in already.

Early results from the Seattle Republican's four-pronged candidate rating system (all scores from 1-10):
Charisma: 3
Name recognition: 2
Political Experience: 7
Other life story elements: 3

I don't think she's worried yet.

If You Love Nuclear Disarmament: Is It Because You Love War?

2010-02-02T22:12:00.000-08:00

As one of the fundamental planks of his foreign policy, Obama has resurrected nuclear disarmament talks with the Russians. As he said in Egypt:

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

I'll keep this short. We haven't been in a major war since we dropped the bomb. Mutual Assured Destruction has kept the peace for 60 years. Nuclear disarmament would greatly increase the temptation for aggressive countries eager to intimidate their neighbors or grab resources (yes, I am talking to you Russia!). It would lead to war.

Nuclear weapons are our friend. This is a perfect example by the way of democrats supporting policies because they feel right, not because they actually produce the right results, which I discussed here.

Green Jobs: LIke an Incinerator for Money

2010-02-02T21:56:00.000-08:00

I am actually not a rabid, knee jerk, Obama basher/birther type. Let me disabuse you of that supposition straightaway. I basically have good will toward presidents because when they do well, we do well.

That said, the administration's "green jobs" and small business initiatives are misguided.

First, "green jobs." Green jobs is the kind of economic program someone who has never been in business would devise. Here's how it works. Certain entities (I am thinking of Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, Boeing and Amazon.com but you can think of whoever you want) make money. They're innovators. They have mastered the difficult task of investing in new technologies to create products that both please customers and turn a profit. These companies, and the experts who make them work, make the economy stronger by creating lasting businesses that employ people at high wages and at the same time provide for retirements and nest eggs everywhere. The government takes money from those entities, preventing them from reinvesting it. Instead the government spends it to pay people to do things that a rational investor or business manager or homeowner or whatever would ever pay for. Why won't people pay to have these green things done? Because they are not worth it. You wouldn't pay $50 to save $10 in heating bills would you? But if it's "green," then the green jobs program will pay for that. By paying for this green work, the government has turned the $50 it took from the innovating company, that would have gone to fund a new business, and turned it into $10. Like magic! The economy is now smaller and instead of creating jobs for more engineers to start tomorrow's businesses, we have trained more insulation installers...no offense.

I am sure that the green jobs program is very popular in high schools or generally in places where no one is very familiar with business. But it will hurt our economy. We should invest in green jobs when their are green technologies that actually create value.

Second, disproportionate favoritism for small business. Obama has announced lower capital gains taxes for investments in small businesses, plus graduated deductibility for small business investment in plant and equipment, plus $30 billion for community banks to lend to small businesses. I like the idea of reducing capital gains taxes in general, but government should not try to point capital in any particular direction. without government interference, capital where it will generate the most wealth for our economy. if it is going to create more value today to invest in a big business, let's let people do that. And if tomorrow it is time to buy plant and equipment and invest in small business, let them do that. If you mess with that flow, in the immortal words of Ned Beatty (well actually the writer Paddy Chaefsky) in Network, "you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale." Or more plainly, you have taken money from successful companies and used it to distort make our national investment flow less rational and less effective. We all come out poorer for it.

My advice? Stop. Stop spending. Resist the impulse to come up with increasingly clever ways to pump up this and that. Take a breath. Take a little vacay. Let the people who know how to create value for the long term keep their money so that they can create value and good jobs for the long term. Find something presidential to do that does not involve the economy (or maybe foreign policy, but more on that another time).

Free Trade and Fair Trade -- Playing to Play vs. Playing to Win

2010-01-31T15:33:00.000-08:00

Have you been to Seoul? Have you been to China? If you are a free trade absolutist, you should certainly go there and check it out. Go to an electronics store. Try to find car dealerships. You may come back with a different perspective on what we call “free trade.” Just as one example, when I was last in Seoul I went to the biggest electronics store, it’s really more like a mall, in the city, called Yongsan. The salient fact about Yongsan was that the first two floors were reserved for Korean products only. To find the American (or Japanese) electronics, you had to go upstairs and find the special store. Unbelievable. They’re not doing that for customers’ sakes. They’re not doing that to make themselves more money. The only possible reason a retail store would do that is because the government told them too. That’s just the beginning.

The situation is that we are engaged in one way free trade where Asian countries can export anything they want to us and we can export a token amount to them. They wind up with lots of money and we wind up with lots of debt. Good deal? Bodes well? I’m not so sure.

How did we get here? Three factors.
- First, economic textbooks indicate that if two countries have free trade they can each do what they are good at and everyone will wind up better off. Example: France is good at making wine. England is good at making sweaters. The English and the French will both be better off if the French focus on making great wine, the English focus on making great sweaters and they trade back and forth. Everyone will have both great sweaters and great wine! Makes sense.
- The second factor is that for some time we have managed our trade policy toward Asia to be a sort of Marshall Plan for Asia. It was important to us that Japan prosper after World War II. It was important to us that South Korea, which was basically agricultural prior to the Korean War (the industrial center was in the North), prosper. More recently, we were very eager to see China prosper on the theory that prosperity would make them more like us and make them like us more.
- The third factor is that Americans want to play fair. We don’t want to cheat. We have in fact an abiding sense of guilt toward poor foreigners and we don’t want to exploit them because, after all, we are so rich. Well, on this score, friends, I can tell you right now that we should get over it. These guys are plenty rich and they have no interest in being fair. They are interested in being rich and their politics and policies are appropriately attuned to that objective. They are playing to win. We are playing to play, or perhaps even playing to lose.

The economic theory makes a lot of sense on paper. However, reality is more complicated and the correct response to the theory is not to be a free trade absolutist. There are many prosperous countries that do not have free trade, including our Asian partners and our European partners. In fact the Asian protectionist, or mercantilist, economies seem to have become much wealthier while they have closed domestic markets. Obviously Smoot-Hawley or no Smoot-Hawley, managed trade obviously can succeed.

In the early 50’s our Marshall Plan policy made a lot of sense. Japan’s GNP in 1951 was 4.3% of the US economy, comparable to the Netherlands or Argentina today. It was reasonable to suppose that the great American economy could tolerate a few small one sided trade relationships for the sake of international stability. Well today things are different and these huge inflows of foreign goods are getting stuck in our craw. It is too much to continue.

Today’s huge trade imbalances of hundreds of billions of dollars per year are an order of magnitude bigger than they were ten years ago. It is creating unpredictable volatility in our currency and economy and it is unsustainable. It is upsetting US industries and workers in ways that, if they were part of the normal vicissitudes of international markets, might be tolerable but as part of a deliberate international strategy are not tolerable.
Now China is restricting contracts with the Chinese government to companies with “indigenous innovation, which means that the intellectual property behind products or services they are buying must be owned by Chinese companies. This is an $85 billion market China just closed off from US competition. As Rick Larsen (D-WA), co-chairman of the US-China Working Group recently said: “”When it comes to protectionism, we’re minor league players when you look at what China is doing.” (Good article here.)

A more longstanding and fundamental problem with our Asian trade relationships concerns intellectual property. This is an area where the United States makes big money internationally -- software, movies, games and technology -- and it is increasingly the focus of our economy. Piracy is rampant in Korea dn China. And coincidentally, this is one aspect of life in China that the Chinese government despite its firm control over so many aspects of life in China can do nothing about. Copying of US software of all kinds in China and Korea is rampant and it benefits those governments to keep it so. Aside from failing to protect against piracy, Korea and China explicitly regulate and limit the distribution of US movies in their countries.

A Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer recently said on CNBC, “Intellectual property protection in China is very, very bad -- abysmal. It’s almost not fair. We’re buying a lot of goods from China but the things that US companies can sell -- pharmaceutical products, media software -- …is not getting paid for in China.” It’s almost not fair??

This is working well for China and Korea in particular. China is getting rich. They are building their cities. Korea is using its protected home markets to build up manufacturers like Hyundai and Samsung so they can take on international markets. Our Marshall Plan has worked in one respect -- our Asian trading partners are rich now -- but it is worth mentioning that it has not worked in another respect. It has not made them more like us. Specifically China has not become more democratic because they have engaged in international trade and more of their citizens have become affluent.

We have to discontinue our Marshall Plan policies toward Asia and demand policies that create balanced and sustainable trade relationships. This should be the policy of the Republican Party.

Don't Get Overconfident Because of Scott Brown

2010-01-31T13:56:00.000-08:00

In the aftermath of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, many Republicans are tempted to forget 2008 and blame our recent defeats on a stroke of economic bad luck and/or on John McCain. But it would be short-sighted to miss the opportunity to learn from our recent failures. Scott Brown or no Scott Brown, the Democratic Party still easily controls both houses of Congress and we lost the last Presidential election by a wide margin. Our recent success is something like kicking a field goal at the end of the first half so that we can run into the locker room behind by only three touchdowns! We’ve got a long way to go and we still have some things to fix. The field goal feels good, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. If we do not make changes to our platform or (if you will accept a business metaphor in the same paragraph as a sports metaphor) to our “product,” I believe we will sustain our momentum.

Even a successful party, like a successful team, has to occasionally learn a new play. When parties succeed in a major way, they often instinctively stick with their winning play until it stops succeeding, and then some. The time for the Republican Party to learn a new play is now. The Democratic Party went through a similar experience not long ago and they have emerged much stronger. Let’s look at that.

The Democratic Party had a great run for a while in the post war era. They took control of the House of Representatives in 1955 and held on for more than 20 years. Not only had they won World War II and ended the depression, but by 1970 it was clear that they had also been on the right side of the Civil Rights issue. So the exultant, proud Democratic Party kept banging away on the same themes. Throughout the 1960-1980 period and into the 1980’s, the Democratic Party tried to pass a civil rights bill and a pro-union bill in every legislative session. In the beginning the electorate responded. But in the end, the need for those programs resonated less. “Civil rights,” for instance, evolved from fundamental civil rights to affirmative action, which simply conferred privileges on groups that were voting for Democrats. By the late 70’s, the Democratic Party was doing the same thing it had done for a while but times were a changing and there were new problems to solve. The Party was no longer in step with the people. Carter lost 15 seats in mid-term election of Carter’s first (and only) term and in 1980 he started a major Democratic Presidential losing streak.

The Democratic Presidential losing streak did not end until a reformer with a new paradigm-shifting perspective was nominated; I am of course referring to Bill Clinton in 1992. But until the very end there were old timers who still believed that the key to the Democratic Party’s national success was more civil rights and more pro-union legislation. There are some who remain today, which is the nature of paradigms.

Bill Clinton, by modernizing the platform of the Party, saved it and helped it grow. The Democratic Party needed him, even though some felt he had let them down by embracing welfare reform in his first State of the Union Address and by signing The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Three members of the Clinton Administration resigned in protest when Clinton signed the Welfare bill but it made the Democratic Party much stronger and more attuned to the people. Clinton got an albatross off the Democratic Party's back. It could again lay claim to being a responsible governing party.

The Republican Party has its special play that has worked well (at least on the Presidential level) at least since Ronald Reagan. Abortion, gun rights, Christianity, low taxes, a strong defense, free trade, law and order and fiscal conservatism have been the key planks. I would argue, and have argued, that three issues need to be re-examined to maximize our future success: abortion, fiscal conservatism and free trade. This is a good time to make a change and get a few albatrosses off our backs.

Abortion
Abortion as a political issue is a loser. It is mere theater. It does more to excite democrats and drive off moderates than it does to excite Republicans; it is mere theater because the odds of the federal government moving away from Roe v. Wade or seriously moving off the three month rule articulated in that decision are zero. So abortion is a great way to volunteer for defeat. See my complete analysis of the issue here.

Inconsistent Fiscal Conservatism
It’s not that I think fiscal conservatism is bad; it’s that we need to become more credible on this issue. Financially, Republican candidates always say we want lower taxes, higher military spending and balanced budgets. This position I believe has come to lack credibility. What always happens is that we cut taxes, raise military spending and fail to cut domestic spending. Then deficits rise. Reagan and Bush II let the deficits rise. Bush I raised taxes. None of our recent presidents succeeded in doing what we like to say we want to do. When we controlled Congress it didn’t happen either. So our credibility on this issue is not strong, and to some extent I think McCain paid the price for this. After the Bush tax cuts (and deficits), I just don’t think people were interested in hearing someone with the same line on taxes and deficits.

Here’s how government economics work in a nutshell. Military spending goes up every year faster than the rate of US economic growth. Social Security and medical spending go up every year faster than the rate of US economic growth. The rest of the budget is the tail of the dog. So almost by definition the government’s percent of GDP goes up over time. Therefore, either taxes have to go up every year or the deficit does. It’s as simple as that!

Taxes can’t go to 100%, and taxes are a disincentive to work and grow the economy. So we are right to want to hold taxes low. But I think where we need to improve our credibility is in defining the areas where we intend to save money. What will it be? Military spending or Social Security/Medicare? That is too big a question to answer here, but for now I will just say that it is credible to say that we are going to cut taxes and cut Medicare and reduce military spending but is not credible to say that we are going to cut taxes and cut nothing.

Free Trade
My next post will be on free trade but I would argue that right now our position is one of free trade absolutism and that this is blind to the realities of international trade that are morphing and distorting our economy in potentially dangerous ways. This issue is not the #1 determinant of votes, but it is ultimately very important for the economy. More in my next post.

A Republican Approach to Governing

2010-01-26T23:56:00.000-08:00

The Obama healthcare effort suffered from two process problems. First, the goal was unclear. Second, it tried to do too much at once.

If I may direct your attention to the New York Times editorial of October 18, 2009, “The Public Plan, Continued.” The editorial advocates for the “public option,” the creation of a new government-run health insurance company. In the first paragraph, the editorial advocates for the public option because it will “inject more competition into insurance markets, hold down the cost of insurance policies, and save money for the federal budget.” Putting aside the absurd reasoning later in the piece, with which I will not trouble you, the key is that in October 2009 the New York Times was selling Obamacare primarily as a cost cutting move. In September 2009, Obama had focused his message on getting insurance for 30 million uninsured people. So what is it? Medical care for the poor? Cost cuts for everyone? If cost cuts are the goal, how much are we cutting? If we're helping the poor is our goal to reduce the number of uninsured to zero? What are we doing here?

If you are going to launch an initiative, you must have a clearly articulated goal. Otherwise, you cannot sell it and you cannot know whether you are successfully achieving your goal. You cannot be effective.

Trying to create one single, perfect, comprehensive solution to a problem is typical of an intellectual. I like intellectuals but they are often bad managers. Anyone with experience with major businesses can tell you that the best way to solve a big problem is to disaggregate it into a bunch of small, manageable problems and start solving the easiest ones first. Among other things, this is a humble approach that admits we cannot be sure, despite the careful planning of however many well trained and compensated MBAs and analysts, what the effects of initiatives will be. What we know is that we will learn from experience -- in fact we are confident that in some ways we will be wrong. Therefore in business we make one small bet at a time rather than one huge bet all at once. The Republicans recommended exactly such a “low hanging fruit” approach to healthcare, proposing to begin any set of reforms with some manageable, reversible experiments. As Lamar Alexander said recently from the floor of the Senate, “Human experience has always taught that enough small steps in the right direction is one good way to get you where you want to go and also a good way to avoid many unexpected and unpleasant consequences.”

Similarly, in governance, we should follow four principles to form a Republican style of governance:
- Focus on things we can accomplish that will yield tangible results.
- Be clear about what our goals are
- Approach problems humbly. Launch incremental, step by step programs. We will reverse programs that don't work. We will double down on programs that do work.
- Look back and be vocally self-critical if we fail to achieve our goals

Such a style would provide a healthy contrast with the Obama administration’s first year.

6 things the Republican Party needs to give up

2010-01-26T14:53:00.000-08:00

This is my big opportunity to lose friends. But sometimes people need tough love. This is one of those times. Here are four things Republicans need to get away from in stump speeches:

Overdoing it with Christianity
I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday. Love it. I often whistle “Praise God from whom all blessings flow,” which is a beautiful melody and is true. But our nation does not require you to be religious or to follow any particular religion. It may excite a few to talk about restoring the United States as a “Christian nation” but it hurts the party and perhaps the unity of the nation. It is simply unwelcoming. If we want to get things done, we have to stop using this rhetoric. The United States was designed to be friendly to people of all religions. Let’s keep it that way.

Abortion
Roe v. Wade is a poorly reasoned opinion. No doubt. It is dangerous to allow judges to find new fundamental rights in the “penumbra of the Bill of Rights.” That’s called a one man Constitutional Convention. But at this point the three month rule is a settled compromise. Bush tried to stack the court with pro-lifers and it didn’t work out. It is unrealistic to believe it will work out next time and if it did it would be the greatest gift we could ever give the Democrats. I am not pro-abortion but we need to let this one lie because it is not going to change. At this point it is just a polarizing waste of time. If you are a Republican candidate and you launch into a harangue about abortion what you are saying is "I would like to waste some time now on an emotional issue in hopes of distracting you from the real issues in this campaign." Just get a sign and hold it up during the abortion part of your speech. Note by the way that Scott Brown handled abortion exactly as I am recommending.

I am not saying we should not speak out against partial birth or other late term abortions. But we should not get the Democratic Party excited with rhetoric about banning abortions altogether. To do so, we give them too much without getting anything. Moreover, it is true that eliminating that three month window will lead to a large number of illegal abortions. Just because you illegalize something doesn’t mean it stops. It just changes the economics of it.

Reducing taxes without cuts
For 30 years now we have been saying we were going to cut taxes, raise military spending and balance the budget. Hmmm… Something is missing there. Oh, yes. Cutting spending. We don’t actually ever get around to doing that even when we control Congress, so we don’t ever actually balance the budget. Republicans will protest that when we cut taxes we will increase revenue. Really? Well that didn't close the budget gap for Reagan, Bush or Bush II so can you explain why it is going to work next time? People do not believe this anymore. After running on this rhetoric for 30 years, the party has lost credibility on this issue.

If the party is going to run on lower taxes (and I heartily recommend that we do), it must specify where we are cutting. People know empty rhetoric when they see it. John McCain paid the price for towing the debunked party line on this issue.

Anti-intellectualism
Democratic leaders are too intellectual for their own good. They are fond of elaborate mental marzipans, often get lost in a forest of theories about Marxism or Global Warming and emerge with horrible ideas. Which is great -- as Napoleon said, “never interrupt your opponent when he is in the middle of making a mistake.”

However, we have to drop the anti-intellectual vibe if we want to be a major party, especially if we want to have any success on the coasts. You can’t have a major political party devoid of ideas and without any sort of intellectual leadership. I guarantee you that we will be marginalized if all the smart people are playing for the other team.

Reagan didn’t come off as particularly highfalutin, but he was driven by important ideas. Bush II was different. He was unintellectual in the manner of someone who just doesn’t get it and who doesn't really have ideas. That’s not good. The party crossed a line in the third TV debate among Republican primary candidates for President in 2000. The candidates were asked what political philosopher influenced them most. Steve Forbes said John Locke. That is the best possible answer for a Republican. George Bush said Jesus. Hey, it got him elected but, friends, that is the road to perdition. I love Jesus but he is not a political philosopher. He was a religious leader. If you say Jesus is your favorite political philosopher it is because you do not know what political philosophy is. It is like saying Jesus is your favorite dentist. When we embraced someone because he could get votes, even though he was clearly an intellectual midget, we made a bargain with the Devil. We’re paying the price now.

Now Sarah Palin…don’t get me started. Count me out of the “Sarah Palin” wing of the Republican Party. That’s just cynical.

Being generally out of it
Hey candidates, how about this? Stop having your secretary print your emails. If you don’t know how to turn on a computer, you should not be part of the country’s leadership. Period. Because, yes, it is that important to our future. Sorry. If we put John McCain up again against a guy who seems with it and uses a blackberry, we’re toast. Computer illiterate people cannot get jobs in the private sector. How do you expect voters under 50 to respect them? They won’t.

Flag Waving
I get it. You like America. Me too. But all this excessive, almost defensive posturing around patriotic symbols is overdoing it and it makes us look like idiots or children or idiotic children maybe. Yes I understand that one of the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans has to do with pride in country, but you can overemphasize patriotic symbolism and if we do, we look like we’re trying to distract from substantive discussions with cheap theatrics and basing our party on a set of cultural codes instead of substantive perspectives on issues. That’s bad.

After the next few years, the party needs to appear substantial. So let’s not overdo the patriotic theatrics or any other symbolism.

Summary: The 6 perspectives that make you a Republican

2010-01-26T10:25:00.000-08:00

The purpose of the last 6 posts was to explain the fundamental starting point of the Republican perspective and to lay the groundwork for specific policy discussions. It is helpful for Republicans to debate and agree on our fundamental perspectives as there has been a bit of confusion of late. I hope it might also be helpful for anyone wondering whether they are more naturally a Republican or Democrat.

The 6 fundamental perspectives that distinguish a Republican from a Democrat are these:
- Individualism
- Freedom
- Pragmatism
- Family
- Pride
- Optimism

I hope I have helped to show how critical these traits are for the future success of our great country.

What is a Republican VI: Optimism

2010-01-26T10:21:00.000-08:00

Republicans basically believe we can have a bright future ahead of us so long as we do not get in its way. Technology will continue to transform our lives in positive ways. Success and opportunity will improve our cities. Entrepreneurialism and free trade will help us succeed globally.

Democrats have a tendency to be pessimistic and to believe that the world is going to end if the government does not step in. In the 70s, the Democrats were worried about global cooling and expected -- I am referring to Democratic leaders like Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neil and Howard Metzenbaum here as well as thinkers like Paul Ehrlich -- that American cities were in permanent decline, Japan was going to take over the business world and we had to back down militarily in the face of the all powerful Soviet Union. These were all wrong and we should all learn from the fact that the Democratic Party made bad, overly pessimistic predictions for so long.

I cannot explain why these tendencies of mind exist but they are very real. I think it is best to have optimistic leaders who believe we can do well. If you don’t think you can do well, you can’t.

As a postlude, it's interesting to note that Republicans are happier than Democrats. See the Pew Survey data here. :)

What is a Republican V: Pride

2010-01-26T10:12:00.000-08:00

Nobody’s perfect. But Americans have good reason to be proud of their country. Our nation provides a goodly, even a unique, portion of wealth, fairness and rule of law to its 300 million+ people, leads the world in business and technical innovation, and generously supports freedom, security and democracy around the world. Historically we have been a beacon of freedom and individual rights.

Yes we have sinned too. Slavery was bad, Jim Crow was bad, Native Americans have often been treated unfairly and Vietnam turned out to be a bad idea. We have made a lot of progress in the last century with respect to fairness to all races (and both genders). But to throw away the baby with the bathwater -- to believe that America is bad because of its shortcomings -- is foolish and demonstrates a complete lack of perspective on both history and contemporary comparative government.

Democrats do not agree. Let’s not quibble. You know and I know that every person you have met who has gone into a long and sanctimonious tirade about how awful America is has been a Liberal Democrat. Am I wrong? Every Spartacus Youth League, Howard Zinn-quoting oddball who continually disparages the United States is a Liberal Democrat. Everyone who gets uncomfortable with saluting the flag or with any show of patriotism is a hyper-sophisticated Liberal Democrat, and everyone who has burned an American flag has been a Liberal Democrat. Michelle Obama said it when her husband was nominated for President of the United States: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm proud of my country.” This was not by any means an exceptional view, or a flub. It is the common perspective of the Democratic party.

It seems intellectually clever, like you’re the smart, wised up kid in class, to excoriate the United States. But it is ignorant and childish. Anyone who is being intellectually honest should agree that the United States is a force for good and that we have much to be proud of. It is easy for the Democrats to find a candidate who can claim to be patriotic and who perhaps even is patriotic. But we should bear in mind that when we elect a candidate they bring all of their cronies and fellow travelers with them to populate the bureaucracy and the courts. And when we populate our bureaucracy and courts with people who are fundamentally skeptical of the United States, its uniqueness and its quality, we take risks we should not be taking.

What is a Republican IV: Family

2010-01-26T08:59:00.001-08:00

Preserving the opportunity for people to have a fairly traditional family life, if that’s what they want, is a high priority for Republicans. You should be able to have kids and send them to scouts and soccer and celebrate your holidays all living together with a fire in the hearth. People may not choose to do this -- of course -- but it should be possible, and if we make it more achievable we’ve made the world a better place.

While it would be unfair to say that Democrats oppose family life, of course, they have higher priorities. They do not get up in the morning focusing on how to make traditional family life easier to attain. Instead, they are typically caught up in an elaborate theory to save the world and in doing so (or typically, in not doing so) Democrats often promote programs that reduce incentives for married poor couples to stay together or generally make things harder for parents to live a traditional life and bring up their children in a safe environment.

The Democratic disconnect with traditional life is why the Democratic Party often fails among blue collar voters. Liberals are so out of touch with this issue that they are mystified when it loses them votes. They write puzzled books about it (e.g., What’s the Matter With Kansas). Maybe I shouldn’t be writing about it publicly?

What is a Republican III: Pragmatism vs. Idealism

2010-01-26T00:24:00.000-08:00

“Man is not a thing -- not something to be used merely as a means: he must always in all his actions be regarded as an end in himself.” -- Immanuel Kant

Republicans are skeptics. They are often students of history, and have often learned hard lessons from history. Republicans believe in common sense. They are pragmatic. They mostly care about what works. If you are into Myers-Briggs personality types, Republicans are detail oriented S’s while Democrats are idea oriented N’s. Many engineers and business people -- and a lot of just down to Earth people! -- become Republicans.

There is nothing more attractive to Liberal Democrats on the other hand than an elaborate theory such as Marxism or Global Warming. Many intellectuals therefore become Liberal Democrats. Moreover, and I think this is related, Democrats will often embrace policies that “feel right” even if they don’t work. Having one’s “heart in the right place” is, in practice, a defense for anything in Democrat thinking. Often people who are very emotional but not very rigorous -- many celebrities are in this camp -- become Democrats. Democrats are heady, and often they’re emotional, but they are not as practical as Republicans.

Examples:
i. Democrats are inclined to create large-scale, complex solutions to problems. These solutions usually involve creating a large new government program and supporting agency. Republicans on the other hand want to solve problems incrementally, one improvement at a time, without overinvesting in a huge infrastructure. Democrats can spin up a vision for a large, complex governmental system in no time. It’s literally what they like to do. Lamar Alexander's recent article on healthcare captures this distinction perfectly.

ii. In foreign policy, Republicans want to be strong first, and then be nice. Democrats want to be nice to everyone and “make friends.” Historically, being strong gets better results than being nice. Carter tried making friends with Russia and it didn’t work. Obama has tried to befriend Russia and Iran and it hasn’t worked. He projected an image that was interpreted as weakness by Iran. This represents the triumph of an emotional approach instead of a time tested, practical approach.

iii. In evaluating thinkers and politicians, Democrats are very forgiving to people who make huge mistakes but whose hearts were in theory in the right place. Ted Kennedy and his Congressional colleagues Howard Metzenbaum and Tip O’Neill in the 70’s were horrible predictors of policies that would move America forward, throwing their lot in with an economic vision of American defeat and economic doom. Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome made absurd predictions in the late 60’s about the global economy. Economist Lester Thurow made useless predictions about Japan and the global economy in the 80s. All are lionized today and all are very securely part of the democratic pantheon.

iv. The pragmatism/idealism difference can perhaps be observed most starkly in the very different reactions of American thinkers to Marxism. Liberals love -- well, they loved -- Marxism. It is an elaborate, complex theory that has its heart in the right place. Does it work well? No. Does it deprive people of freedoms and impoverish nations? Well, yes, but its heart is in the right place and it has a certain intellectual appeal. That was for many years enough for many Democrats.

Skepticism is good. We should be skeptical about giving any individual too much power. We should be skeptical about trying to solve problems with huge, complex solutions rather than practical detailed improvements. We should be skeptical about elaborate new theories that do not seem to fit with common sense -- because the reality is that they come and go. Marxism didn’t work. Idealism is dangerous. Nazis were idealists. Stalin was an idealist. We should never turn away from a common sense, pragmatic style in devising policy. Republican skepticism, because it was skeptical about Marxism, saved America. It will save America again.

What is a Republican II: Freedom v. Risk Management

2010-01-25T23:23:00.000-08:00

Milton Friedman said: “There are still intellectuals who believe that concentrated power is a force for good so long as it is in the hands of men of good will. I’m waiting for the day when we reject socialism, communism and all other varieties of collectivism; when [we] realize that a security blanket isn’t worth the surrender of our individual freedom.”

Forced to choose, Republicans make freedom their first priority. Forced to choose, Liberals make risk reduction their first priority. A Republican administration will not ignore risk reduction and a Democratic administration will not ignore freedom, but when the chips are down they will choose risk reduction every time. This should be a very easy way to understand whether you should naturally be a Democrat or Republican.

The freedom vs. risk management issue is closely related to the paternalism vs. individualism issue but it’s different. They do share a root cause, which is that Republicans look at society as a collection of individuals (or at most a collection of families) and think about policies in terms of how they impact the individual life whereas Democrats look at society as a single mass or as a collection of large groups -- races and classes or, more broadly, oppressed vs. oppressors. They abstract away the impact of policies on individuals and focus analyze the impact of societal change in terms of the mass, collective impact. If aggregate utility is increased by a given policy, Democrats will favor it even if it reduces freedoms for individuals.

The Republican view is better because we all live lives as individuals, not as some sort of collective mass, and because giving up freedom is a slippery slope. You can only give it up once.

Specific examples in life --

Taxes. Retaining and controlling the money you earn is an important freedom. It allows you to express your preferences in your life and determine your own fate.

Safety regulation. Republicans want you to do what you want unless it really imperils society. It’s your life and you are a grown up. Democrats want you to trust him or her with your decisions; they will make great decisions for the betterment of everyone. Would you like to have a wood burning fire in your home? Well that’s too bad. Would you like to smoke a cigarette in your home? Too bad. Would you occasionally like to be able to ride your motorcycle -- acknowledging that you are taking risks -- without your helmet? Well that is too bad.

Other regulation. Another example involves regulations designed to control you for your own good. Have you ever had a politician determine that all new houses in a neighborhood have to have large front porches because they believe it will make everyone chat more? That person, I guarantee, was a Liberal Democrat. Does it matter if some people don’t want large front porches? Well, too bad for them.
When you embrace liberalism you trade your freedom for whatever security society can give you. You accept a child-like state. Republicans are not inclined to do so.
None of the founders would understand the degree of regulation we have today.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson

What is a Republican I: Paternalism vs. Individualism

2010-01-24T23:04:00.000-08:00

There are a number of polls one can find online that will place you on the political spectrum by asking you questions about various temporary issues, but fundamentally it comes down to a few major inclinations. One is Paternalism vs. Individualism.

Democrats are naturally inclined to solve everyone’s problems. Republicans want to create the conditions under which people can solve their own problems. You’ve heard it I’m sure -- “if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.” The Democrats are fundamentally inclined to pass out fish. Republicans are inclined to teach people to fish. As it turns out, teaching people to fish works better.

On a closely related point, it has been the goal of Democrats for decades to make of America a new Europe. Republicans have wanted to make a greater America that is still uniquely American. There is a difference. Simply put, liberty and individual rights are central to the American way of thinking. They are part of the European way of thinking too, but anyone who has spent time in Europe can tell you that Europeans have become much more interested in reducing risk than in individual rights. In Europe, peevish and petty regulations frequently trample freedoms. In America, less so (but more so if we're not observant).

A classic American wants to be self-determining, sui generis, to find his or her own way and to pay his own way. To an American, the government is useful but is not there to guarantee success. The majority of French 18-25 year olds want to be fonctionnaires, which is French for “government bureaucrat.” That’s not something Americans can relate to. It’s not a detail. It is central to the American character. Jefferson articulated three inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” He did not include “happiness” itself as a right, but merely its pursuit. There is a major difference there. Perhaps Louis Armstrong captured the essence of what an American man wants in “Hello Brother”:

A man wants to work...for his pay
A man wants a place...in the sun
A man wants a gal proud to say
That she’ll become his lovin’ wife
He wants a chance to give his kids a better life
Well hello ah.... hello brother

Americans don’t want the government to give them a better life. They want to work and to be able to earn a better life, to claim it as their own. Americans want the wind to run through their hair as they ride their Harley down the open highway toward a great future of their own making. There is risk, but there is also opportunity. Americans and conservatives would not give up the risk if it meant giving up the opportunity, but Europeans have, and American liberals would. P.J. O’Rourke offends Europeans and delights Americans when he says “America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.”

So there are differences between Americans and Europeans. These differences can predictably be observed in Europe-loving liberals and America-loving conservatives.

I will end with a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Yes there is one :)

2010-01-24T20:24:00.000-08:00

Let me just say up front -- Democrats aren’t all bad; Republicans aren’t all good (or all bad). I don’t think anyone participating in the political process does so primarily because they are evil or corrupt. I hope it’s not boring to be all moderate and reasonable about things, but that’s how I am. There are people who think their political opponents are evil. I think they are indulging in a little fantasy to make politics more fun (like people who put money on football or Tabasco on eggs). But as I see it, at a high level most people in the mainstream of American politics share similar goals. If it’s more fun for you to believe that everyone you oppose is evil, go ahead but that’s too bad for you and perhaps too bad for the country too.

That said, there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, and they wind up being important if we want to actually achieve things. I think I can show you that in many respects the Republican approach has been, and can in the future be, more effective than the Democratic approach.

I write as a Seattleite. Seattle has been for some time isolated from one of the most original strains of thought in American politics and has missed some opportunities because of it. Seattleites have been shut off from a healthy political debate and from ideas that could have helped Seattle. This lack of competition is partly why Seattle has wound up with such a mediocre set of politicians (yes Jim McDermott, I am talking about you).

I am not alone in thinking that Republicans have been the party of ideas for a while. Barack Obama said in 2008 that “Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.” That’s true. The Democratic Party had very few new ideas between the Great Society and, well, quite recently. The Republican Party has had a lot of new ideas that are in step with the world as it has been evolving.

As an aside, I don’t know how so many smart people stayed loyal to the Democratic Party from about 1978-1992 when it was fairly evident that they were defending a dead ideology and fighting the future (confirmed by their ultimate abandonment of 90% of everything they were advocating). Who knows what they were thinking? The genius of Bill Clinton was that he jettisoned many of the party planks that were past their prime. One thing you can say for Bill is that he knows a political loser when he sees one and he saved his party.

Republicanism in Seattle has to be different from Republicanism in certain other parts of the country. The kind of Republicanism that can work in Seattle is, fortunately, the kind of Republicanism that works for me, but I also believe it is the only kind of Republicanism that will remain relevant in the United States 20 years from now. It is focused on using the latest ideas to solve societal problems and while maintaining our economic strength, giving everyone opportunity, and preserving the environment.

Let’s see if we can find some common ground and some new ideas.