Bipartisan Disorder

In the name of transparency, what follows is purely my opinion. I make no pretense to authority on this particular topic and any similarity to real expertise is merely coincidental. I would also like to make clear that I am staunchly AGAINST Obamacare and would like to see the law repealed. Saying such doesn't violate the spirit of this blog. Quite the contrary, if we all cared a little more about issues than we did parties and politicians we'd probably be surprised to see what we could accomplish. 

Public policy is not an exact science. History is replete with public policy gone bad. From slavery, to welfare, to price controls, to the FDA food pyramid.  In the worst cases, the negatives of a policy are visible in its very conception, i.e, Slavery, The Holocaust, etc.. But much more often the source of the policy is some perceived common-good and the negatives only make themselves apparent after-the-fact (Indeed whether all bad policy stems from good intention, even the Holocaust, is an interesting discussion but one for another time).    

The most recent example of this is the housing bubble which was driven by public policy aiming to expand access to home-mortgages to middle and lower income Americans. 

Therefore, it is very reasonable to be suspect of any public policy with such a broad, sweeping goal as " Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans" which is the self-declared goal of Obamacare. I don't think it's socialist or communist to want to find ways improve health care and make it more accessible. But I think a big-national-comprehensive approach is, quite frankly,  a dumb way to go about it. The premise you can write a law the will affect the health care of 300 million Americans and get it right on the first try is arrogant at best. 

I would have much preferred the Clinton-Gingrich approach to reforming Welfare, which was to set goals at the federal level but ultimately leave the states free to decide how to reach those goals and provide incentives for the to do so. 

To liberals who want a single-payer system, I say fine, but lets not commit the whole nation to it before a single state has   proven it can be done. But prudence and caution are always the worst of evils to the self-righteous ideologue who cannot suffer the thought that they may not know everything worth considering about an issue. 

All this is to say that I've never opposed Obamacare simply because I think it is "unconstitutional". So the fact that Obamacare is being considered by the Supreme Court is more amusing to me than anything else. While I hope they throw it out, my world view will not be shattered if they do not.

But there are two things I find particularly interesting to note about the discussion. First, one of the consistent criticism of the limited government position is that its arguments are merely examples of the "slippery slope" fallacy.  If you let government regulate this then government will end up regulating that. A valid criticism at times. For instance, if the govenrment were to legalize marijuna, it wouldn't necessarily lead to legal cocaine. And yet, this is a oft heard refrain of conservative supporters of the drug war. 

But if you read the commentary from Obamacare proponents you can see the reverse of the slippery slope is in effect. Witness this quote from Paul Krugman via Kevin Drum: 

We know, or I think we know, that a single-payer system — in which the government collects taxes, and uses the revenue to provide health insurance — would be constitutional. I mean, I don’t think the court is about to strike down Medicare. Well, ObamaRomneycare is basically a somewhat klutzy way of simulating single-payer. Instead of collecting enough revenue to pay for universal health insurance, it requires that those who can afford it buy the insurance directly, then provides aid — financed with taxes — to those who can’t. The end result is much the same as if the government collected taxes from those under the mandate and bought insurance for them....It is in no sense more interventionist, more tyrannical, than Medicare; it’s just a different way of achieving the same thing.

You can't draw the line at Health Care Mandates if your didn't draw the line at Medicare.  So perhaps we shouldn't totally dismiss the slippery slope argument the next time we hear it. 

But this leads to the second interesting thing about this discussion (i.e. the constitutionality of Obamacare) and that is questioning what it means to be "unconstitutional" in the first place. Is it "unconstitutional" because the Supreme Court says it's so? If the SCOTUS next week declares Obamacare constitutional will conservatives across the country suddenly embrace the law? Of course not. Just like liberals still support gun control despite the court's relatively conservative positions opposing hand-gun bans. 

What's the point then? Defenders will say that in a country of 300 million someone has to have the "final say" and that's what the Supreme Court is. At least that's what the winners will say. But there's nothing in the constitution giving the Supreme Court this power. ( Read up on Marbury v Madison ).

Sure it's convenient, let the courts take the heat, but courts aren't elected and aren't really meant so settle domestic controversies.  I recall George W. Bush saying something like "I think this bill is unconstitutional but I'll let the courts take care of that" as he was signing the legislation. Shouldn't every branch consider itself a protector of the Constitution? Should the president sign a law he thinks is unconstitutional? But is this how a democracy should work? I don't have an answer for you ... but when you're getting heated about all this Obamacare/SCOTUS try not to forget about the bigger question. 

Perhaps I'm uninformed ... or misinformed ... but the outrage over Trayvon Martin's shooting is both understandable and justified. Vigilante justice is always uacceptable, but the fact that some are seemingly encouraging retribution on the shooter George Zimmerman is no reason do dismiss the collective anger over the situation in Sanford, FL, as it looks like some conservative news sites may be ready to do. 

We are in a dangerous moment in discourse where civility is still possible but not inevitable. Right now this issue is a bipartisan one as it should be. We teeter on the brink. The left has fired some opening salvos blaming the shooting on conservative gun laws and racial profiling.  What's next? Alas, knee-jerk partisanship is a contageon and it's entirely likely that this coming week Rachel Maddow or Al Sharpton will blame Rush Limbaugh for the murder. And Likewise Glen Beck will find a way to make it Pelosi's or Joe Biden's fault. The madness will spiral downward from there. Will justice be serverd? Will America be better off? Will anything be accomplished? Nope. 

The Right should resist taking the bait. The only outcome of entering such a discussion would be to appear to be FOR the killing of young unarmed African Americans. Instead conservatives should help keep the focus on making sure justice is served as best it can be. 

Equalityanddemocracy.org is debunking some myths about third-party politics. One of the key points is the objection to the terminology "two-party system" because it closes our minds off to the possibility of a third-party or independent winning an election.

Trouble is that technically speaking the American system is oriented toward two parties. We inherited Britain's first-past-the-post voting approach in which only one candidate can win an election. This means that there will always be the "winning" party and the "losing" party. There may be multiple losing parties, but there will always be strong incentives for them to consolidate into one opposition party.

However, it is possible for particular parties to rise and fall and for much of our history they did just that. There were four parties competing in the election of 1860. The question is why that doesn't seem to happen much anymore.

The answer is mostly structural ... i.e. legal. The two parties currently in power have colluded to redraw electoral districts to make them less competitive and colluded to restrict ballot access in the states to make it virtually impossible for third-party and independent candidates to compete in fund-raising and organization. 

So while I generally agree with ACED's defense of third parties ... it's also important to point out the legal barriers. We shouldn't oppose the "two-party system" per-se but instead oppose the current two-party cartel. 

Politico suggests similarities between Mitt Romney and Bob Dole. Maggie Haberman though thinks there are significant differences. She writes: 

Dole was a war hero, who was beloved by fellow Republicans - many of whom felt like they were giving him the political equivalent of the gold watch at a retirement party when he got the nomination. They knew his chances weren't great, but they were willing to go do battle with him leading the charge because of that affection.

She almost seems to be implying that Dole was better off in 1996 than Romney is in 2012. The unemployment rate in March of 1996 was 5.5 percent. Most of us would rejoice 7-point-something now. The times are a bit different. Also, Romney has some trouble connecting to the base, sure, but lets not overstate the issue. For the most part Romney comes across as energetic, upbeat and competent. He may not "feel your pain" (obligatory lip bite) in the same way that Clinton did ... but let's be honest, neither does President Obama.  

The unstated purpose of this blog is to undermine the current two-party monopoly in U.S. Politics. So let's applaud Ron Paul for getting 40 percent of the vote in Virginia last night and 28 percent in North Dakota. Pretty respectible numbers for a libertarian.

What's also interesting is what it says about Romney: that 40 percent of the Republican Party will not vote for Romney no matter the circumstances. Most conservatives I know stongly dislike Ron Paul's foreign policy to the point of agreeing with Santorum and calling it dangerous. But the only thing they hate worse is someone without conviction.  

Compare the VA numbers to Tenessee:

Ron Paul gets barely 9 percent of the vote when all the candidates are on the ballot. And yet, some how in Virginia he gets 40 percent. Just interesting. 

This piece by Timothy Egan got me thinking. While it's easy to sit around and talk about a separation of church and state as a clear-cut disagreement. It is in fact a rather complicated issue.

We are embodied creatures raised within a society of people and ideas. To think that we can abstract our selves from those conditions and make purely logical conclusions on policy issues is a bit idealistic. Our moral assumptions and worldviews are, by definition, influential on our judgements. That's the whole point of having them in the first place. 

And yet, the foundation of liberal society is the assumption that we will never agree upon the most fundamental questions about God and the universe and the essential meaning of life. But we must still find a way to live together peacefully even without this agreement. The concept of a separation between church and state is an attempt to carve out a realm in which disagreement can be tolerated. 

But making the separation is itself based on an assumption, that is the liberal (in the classical sense) assumption that disagreement about the nature of God is part of the human condition and can never be gotten rid of. Proving the rule, we can't even all agree on that. For instance, it's unclear whether the Rick Santorum believes there is a public sphere in which his moral judgement is not appropriate. Likely he does not.

So the liberal is faced with a paradox:  it is impossible for society always to "agree to disagree" about fundamental worldviews without accepting a worldview that tolerates disagreement over the most fundamental questions. Ironically, the modern liberal add stress by asking government to get involved in more and more areas of life in which people disagree. 

The most fundamental case for limited government (as opposed to "progressive" government) is this: because we cannot be expected to keep our personal views from dominating our political views, government must limit itself, as much as possible, to those areas of broad aggreement.  

Here's a Maureen Dowd column calling Santotum a spritual warrior. I suspect we'll see more like this in the next week or so. Here's another one. Rick is much too socially conservative for my taste. But then again, I'm not really considered part of the conservative base. I am much too libertarian. And that's the point: All this handwringing by liberals and libertarians is really pointless. "True" conservatives just don't care that Santorum is a bit too conservative. That doesn't mean they all agree with him ... but it means they are are less concerned about the areas of disagreement than they are the agreements.

They agree with Santorum's authenticity, his willingness to stand up for what he believes and his wilingness to defend his position instead of hedging it. Trouble is, they are falling into another GW Bush trap,  thinking the candidate is a conservative because he talks like a real person and professes a belief in Jesus. But let's not forget that before Obama came along, George W. Bush was setting records for government spending. 

It looks like Catholic Conservatives are still tweaked about the Obama Administration's order that employers must cover contraception for employees. There are obvious political benefits to keeping the flame alive of this one. Republican's would love to go into the fall with working-class Catholics angry at the President. But the logic of the argument is getting more tortured by the day. Here's Daniel Foster in The Corner: 

This is a point that neither the Obama administration nor many of it critics appear to grasp. Obama’s new proposal — according to which employees of religiously affiliated organizations will be offered contraceptive coverage directly by the insurance company — is oblivious to the concern about individual conscientious objectors. Individuals have consciences, not organizations. The new plan does nothing for employers at non-religiously-affiliated businesses or non-profits, for insurers who have to offer contraceptive coverage, or for employees who have to buy it.

The argument has shifted focus from "religious" freedom, broadly construed as acting as part of a group or church, to one of individual freedom. But are we really supposed to buy that the outcry over the last couple weeks was on behalf of individual liberty?

Where are Catholics on the Drug War or Assisted Suicide? Is the freedom from buying health insurance more sacred than the freedom to chose what to put into one's own body ... or how to end one's own life? The idea that somehow the Catholic church is a bulwark defending individual liberty strains credibility. 

Indeed, this has always been an effective criticism of the Conservative movement as a whole: They use the rhetoric of liberty but liberty, for them, is a moving target. One day they defend individual liberty, then next day they defend the liberty of  society to decide for others what the legal meaning of marriage will be. 

Seriously ... maybe ... not really. But he has suspended production of his TV show. It would surely make the race more interesting and perhaps be the nation's best chance to break the current two party system up. And ... it would also fully consummate the entertainmentafication of American Politics. That last one isn't a good thing. 

My gut reaction last week to the whole contraception kerfuffle was that the Obama administration had gone too far and infringed upon first amendment rights of religious employers. But it's always good to be reminded that gut reactions are not always correct reactions. This article makes it clear that issue isn't quite so clear. 

Now, whether it's a good idea to have Washington dictating what insurance coverage employers must provide, that's a whole separate issue.