Here’s what the Democrats really need to acknowledge: “values” – whatever they may be – are a huge part of our “interests” and most of us are willing to sacrifice some (or even a lot) of economic advantage to have the “values” of society reflect our own – or at least to secure our freedom to live by our “values” without interference from people who think they know better than we.
Because of the way the last few presidential elections have turned out calls for abolishing the Electoral College have once again become popular. Unfortunately in the discussion of the Electoral College I rarely, if ever, hear a proper defense of the institution or of its historical reasons for being.
The ruling required no novel legal theories or new constructions — no “activism” (as opposed to “action”) — regarding either statute or constitution; rather it was a perfect model of the traditional role of jurisprudence and separation of powers: to uphold the rule of law by holding the executive to the a priori terms of its text. It was, in fact, anti-”activist” in the best conservative tradition: the court, which we all suspect is sympathetic to the cause of gay-marriage, nevertheless declined to re-interpret the law or to allow an exception to it in the name of achieving the desired outcome.
In all the criticism I have heard about the analysis and use of the Iraq intelligence, and especially about the political decisions based on that intelligence, the one thing that never seems to be mentioned is the context in which that analysis and decision-making was taking place. We talk about it as if the analysis and decision-making process were a matter only of political consequence, or as if the option to do nothing implied zero cost so the only question to answer was whether doing something – that is whether going to war – would make things better or worse. But that is not the environment in which events unfolded.
The question of the day seems to be whether Spain’s election results and subsequent announcement that they would withdraw their troops from Iraq amounted to an exercise in democracy or an act of appeasement. Notwithstanding the vehemence and sanctimony accompanying pronouncements either way, the answer may simply be “Yes. Both.”
During the last presidential campaign John Kerry scored populist points castigating “greedy corporations” who avoided paying their “fare share” of taxes by “sheltering” their profits in foreign countries. In an era of corporate downsizing and record budget deficits that topic resonated with many people, and the charges were repeated widely before disappearing under the weight of other criticism more easily tied directly to George Bush. But before they disappeared The Boston Globe ran a piece by Stephen Glain on the topic in their business section. I sincerely believe there is a lot of questionable – or downright dishonest – stuff going on behind the corporate veil in support of avoiding taxes. But I also believe that a business reporter should consider the possibility that some practices characterized by populist politicians as malfeasance may actually have a rational and legitimate basis in business principles – and that a reporter writing a story on the topic should at least talk to some people in business who are using those practices before writing the story about them.
If a state chooses to live up to the more modern understanding of its obligation to fairness and equality under the law by creating a gender-neutral form of civil union, that is certainly just and arguably wise. If a same-sex couple, having been properly joined by such a state-sanctioned civil union, chooses to call themselves “married” some may contradict them but no one can or should stop them. If a church chooses to sanctify their union and call it “marriage” in the eyes of God, that is their right. If members of their community choose to honor the union with the same designation, then the communal sense of marriage will begin to evolve. If enough people in enough communities defer to the new usage then the traditional concept of marriage will begin to lose its name and, our ability to conceptualize it thereby undermined, will slowly fade from our cultural memory, just as gayness did decades ago. And we will be culturally poorer for that even as we are culturally more inclusive.
But that is a transformation that should be decided individual by individual in a cultural dialog over years or generations, in which some are free to preserve the old concepts and others to embrace the new until the weight of cultural consensus removes the last holdouts – or never does. It is not a transformation that should be enforced by political power.
Periodically in discussing issues surrounding nuclear non-proliferation someone – typically but not always someone from some Islamic country – will assert that we have no right to deny the likes of Saddam Hussein or the Iranian Ayatollahs access to nuclear weapons – that such a demand amounts to imperialism, that it interferes with the self-determination of their peoples and usurps their legitimate sovereignty. Inevitably the need for nuclear weapons in the hands of such countries is rationalized by the need to “counter the threat” from Israeli nuclear weapons or from our own. And inevitably attempts to limit the number of nuclear nations in the world are classified as arrogance, the presumption that only members of the nuclear club are sophisticated and moral enough to be trusted with such power.
There is some validity to the issue of the usurpation of sovereignty – although if we wish to be so solicitous of sovereignty we really should have a debate over what constitutes legitimate sovereignty in the modern era of human rights and ascendant democracy. But where nuclear weapons are concerned basic survival, not sovereignty, is really the most fundamental consideration. And if our desire that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il not have nuclear weapons represents a presumption that they are not sophisticated and moral enough to be trusted with such capabilities, that presumption is not arrogant but prudent.
In November of 2003 Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times used his column to announce a contest to rename the Iraq war, which the military had dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was my entry.
In an age when charity was the primary means for providing a social safety net and cultural enrichment charity was a matter of moral obligation. We would like to think that is still the case, but according to the CBO such endeavors now consume somewhere between 55% and 75% of the federal budget, and anyone in the top quintile of income distribution is already providing at least 15%-20% of their income as taxes to various governments in direct support of that. Perhaps direct giving to charity is only 2% of income, but if you add the 15% or more of indirect contribution to the same causes via the channel of government I’d say we’re doing pretty well.