Politics & Culture

Why is @WeeklyStandard Leading Conservatives Astray on NSA Monitoring?

No Comments

The more you struggle to justify something, the more likely the odds that the subject is inherently unjustifiable. As such, it’s disappointing that the June 24 issue of The Weekly Standard spends so much time trying and failing to reassure conservatives that the recently disclosed monitoring activities of the National Security Agency constitute a “nothing to see here, move along” moment.

Consider:

  • In The Scrapbook, we learn that “[g]iven the choice between impersonal surveillance, and a repetition of 9/11, most Americans understand what’s at stake.” Because, apparently, there are no options between impersonal surveillance and a repetition of 9/11.
  • Bill Kristol’s lead editorial — titled “IRS Bad, NSA Good” — is a veritable piñata of fallacies. He cites “two leading libertarian legal thinkers, no friends to intrusive government” who support the NSA’s activities and who are quoted, without a hint of irony, as suggesting that we “can’t cite a single case” of government abuse of NSA data. Apparently, Kristol hasn’t surveyed the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the program within the pages of Reason (the propaganda arm of the modern libertarian movement) or considered that perhaps the NSA (like the IRS or EPA) doesn’t actually disclose its abuses. After deploying the libertarian red herring, Kristol devotes half a page to an odd paean about conservatives being able to “walk and chew gum at the same time” before concluding with the non sequitur that … well, I’m not sure. The entire second half of the editorial is as perplexingly off-topic as a Krugman column.
  • Stephen F. Hayes, in “Our Disappearing President,” tell us that since Congress authorized NSA monitoring, and the four top Congressional overseers of the intelligence community are peachy-keen with things, that the only real scandal here is that President Obama hasn’t been more forceful in defending the NSA.
  • We then learn from Reuel Marc Gerecht, in “The Costs and Benefits of the NSA,” that the document leaker, Edward Snowden, is “a serious flake” and that “[c]ivil liberties after 12 years of the global war on terrorism are actually as strongly protected in America as they were in 1999.” A proposition that will come as a surprise, no doubt, to anyone who’s ever passed through a TSA screening checkpoint. Then Gerecht tells us that it’s more likely for civil liberties to be violated by “smaller organizations — the FBI, the CIA or the Secret Service” than by the presumably larger NSA. What a relief! And, by the way, someone should tell political scientists that there’s a direct positive correlation between the size and ethical integrity of a given bureaucracy. We are also invited to trust, on Gerecht’s assertion alone, that the NSA “would probably break down bureaucratically if it attempted to shift gears from foreign observation to domestic surveillance in any threatening way.” Because, of course, it’s apparently impossible to replace people from the old regime with members of the new.

So what do we take away from all of this reassurance?

First, TWS resorts surprisingly often to ad hominem attacks against Snowden and we see many more false-binary and straw-man arguments on this subject than I’m accustomed to seeing from this otherwise intellectually solid magazine. This rhetorical approach hints at an ideological meta-narrative: The writers cannot paint a principled conservative argument in favor of a wide intel dragnet, so they rely on insinuation, assertion and misdirection to arrive at a semi-plausible but logically sketchy conclusion that does comparatively little institutional violence to the muscular interventionist worldview the magazine did so much to promote during the George W. Bush administration. Perhaps the editors adjudged it better to defend the NSA, albeit imperfectly, than to acknowledge honestly that civil liberties really can be (and potentially are) a casualty in the Global War on Terror.

Second, the tack followed by TWS tracks the course charted by leaders in Congress and within the intelligence community — that without the kinds of surveillance presently underway by the NSA, America stands at risk for another 9/11.

It’s not so much that Washington leadership asserts, without proof, that surveillance has averted terror attacks. It’s not even the “trust me, there are no abuses here” line that gets tossed about with reckless abandon. Rather, the problem is the paradigm, the Hobson’s choice that our options are either to accept the surveillance or risk death by terrorist.

America may plausibly pick from any combination of anti-terror initiatives on a very long list of options. The policy currently favored in Washington indicates a bunker mentality: We’ll collect everything, everywhere, and sort things out retrospectively. We’ll hide behind a wall of security, like TSA screenings, that serve more as theater than effective deterrent. We’ll do something comparatively bloodless, like electronic surveillance, instead of risking boots on the ground or deploying human assets in global hotspots.

But why can’t we deal with terror networks in a manner that’s less disruptive to civil liberties? Why can’t we aggressively attack terror cells where they are, and hold accountable the states that harbor them? Why can’t we engage in behavior-based profiling, like the Israelis do, instead of watching TSA agents search the colostomy bags of disabled WWII veterans? Why can’t we invest in a more robust eyes-and-ears intelligence network instead of relying disproportionally on signals intelligence? Why must the emanating penumbra of the Constitution guarantee my privacy, but only about sex?

There’s a wide range of effective policy decisions between “surveillance state” and “unattended borders.” Conservatives must evaluate the risk/reward matrix for national counter-terrorism activity as part of a broader policy formulation. Is the risk of a massive loss of privacy sufficient to guarantee, for any individual citizen, a miniscule reduction in the already miniscule odds that he’ll be a victim of a terror attack? We need a national conversation about whether the benefits are worth the cost. The real scandal here is that the public hasn’t been engaged in that conversation — that the key choices have been made in secret, by people with a vested interest in building a surveillance state. That it took Snowden’s leaks to disclose a program that President Obama said shouldn’t have been all that secret, speaks volumes.

Personally, I would rather risk another 9/11 while maintaining my freedom of obscurity, than to surrender that freedom for the illusion of safety. I have no conspiracy-laden fear of the NSA or of surveillance, per se. I do object to the mindless aggregation of data that serve no useful purpose, but which one day, when an abuse does occur, puts my freedom at some small but non-zero risk.

There’s no such thing as true risk avoidance. The best you can do is balance different strategies to arrive at an optimal cost-benefit ratio. America really hasn’t addressed the cost-benefit ratio — not yet, anyway. What a shame that The Weekly Standard seems content to short-circuit the debate with a “nothing to see here” issue that proved short on substance but long on misdirection. The conservative movement deserves better leadership than this.

Politics & Culture

Bolting the Door of Social Change

No Comments

In the April 29, 2013 issue of The Weekly Standard, Ivan Kenneally writes in “Is Traditional Marriage Toast?” that

… same-sex marriage is a culmination of a long-brewing development, an unspooling of essential modern premises. The relentless logic of modernity is unrestrained individuality, the lonesome sovereignty of the singular person. The pith of matrimony is natural gregariousness, our completion of human beings through coupling. It was only a matter of time before the crashing tide of autonomy reached the shores of conjugal union, pitting the inviolability of the individual against the venerableness of the family. If anything, it is remarkable marriage has remained intact for so long, a testament to its profound allure even in a culture whose trends undermine it.

Kenneally runs through the standard libertarian boilerplate that same-sex marriage is odd, but that the institution itself is not the unchanging bulwark of domestic bliss that it’s often alleged to be.

The SSM angle aside, what struck me about this argument is the implication that conservatives, by and large, have taken perhaps too seriously the drive to stop social change without really thinking about the usefulness of their objections or the seriousness of the battle.

Change is inevitable. True, much change that originates from the Left is not so good; in broad strokes, progressive social change de-emphasizes institutions in favor of radical individual autonomy. Except in economic contexts, of course, in which progressives favor socialization — mostly to pay for the net result of their focus on equality of outcome.

The conservative movement relies on a reflexive No. Often, standing athwart history makes sense. But too frequently, conservatives rely on reflex and never evaluate whether it might make more sense to shape change rather than to block it.

Consider same-sex marriage. Love it or hate it, it appears inevitable. So what’s a conservative to do? Some duck their heads in the sand, some advocate ideological purges, others don’t give a rip. Very few conservatives publicly acknowledge that SSM isn’t the disease, it’s the symptom. Marriage is an increasingly incoherent institution. It serves basic legal purposes, but other institutions could serve those same purposes.

A prudent conservative would look at SSM not as a broadside, but as an opportunity to refine and make more useful an institution that’s been undermined ever since easy contraception and quick divorce made a joke of the “bonds of matrimony.” Maybe that newly reinvigorated institution includes SSM (or polygamy, or whatever) or maybe it doesn’t. But the first step in “saving traditional marriage” comes in acknowledging that SSM isn’t the most lethal enemy on the radar. It’s probably not even in the top 10. Heterosexuals have done more to screw up traditional marriage than homosexuals have, and the culture of indulgence that promotes “the lonesome sovereignty of the singular person” is a much stronger threat to family life than same-sex spouses ever will be.

In other words, the marriage debate opens up a door through which conservatives should gleefully charge, instead of hitting the alarm button and reaching, panicked, for the deadbolt. For as long as conservatives abandon the ideas to the Left, the Left gets to twist the ratchet of change.

Politics & Culture

The Establishment vs. The Tea Party; Or, Why Word Choice Leads to an Irrational Narrative

No Comments

The lion’s share of internecine Republican warfare rests on a problematic assertion: That there’s a qualitative difference, ideologically, between the Tea Party and the so-called Establishment.

I’m not so sure that there is.

What’s the major difference between Tea Party and Establishment Republicans? Only one real distinction comes to mind: Experience.

The Tea Party is upset because they see what they believe is an America under siege by the forces of collectivism and fiscal profligacy. Agree or disagree, but their lament is at least coherent. They want change, and they want it now, and they don’t want it watered down.

The Establishment, by contrast, is probably more Right than Center, but years of observing the Buckley Rule — achieve the most conservative candidate or position that’s possible and don’t die for lost causes — has opened them up to compromise and incrementalism. You might not, for example, get an immediate change in entitlement spending, but you might get a bending of the curve downward with folks like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in charge.

Thus, the struggle between Tea Party and Establishment is probably less about ideology — I think everyone’s fundamentally on the same page — than it is about tactics. The Tea Party folks, because they’re mostly not accustomed to holding significant elective office, fail to understand that you can’t just stomp your feet and get your way. The Establishment folks, because they’re more interested in playing chess with the Democrats than checkers with their co-partisans, seem tone-deaf to the implications of sacrificing an occasional pawn.

It’s convenient to fan the flames of internal discord by alleging a difference in value systems between these two wings of the GOP. In truth, the differences aren’t all that significant, and with a bit of time and good will, we could end up with a GOP that’s got a passionate base with a bit more wisdom, and an elected class with a bit less risk aversion.

As long as we stop letting MSNBC and The Nation set the terms of the discussion.

Politics & Culture

Knock It Off: An Open Letter to @RepJustinAmash

No Comments

Dear Congressman Amash:

Greetings from one of your constituents, a long-time resident of Kent County, Michigan.

I’ll be blunt. Congressman, we need to talk. I think you need an intervention.

When Rep. Ehlers retired at the end of the 111th Congress, the people of the Third District faced a three-way contest for the Republican nomination.  In that race, I supported Bill Hardiman, an experienced leader with a good read on the pulse of our community. Alas, Hardiman and Steve Heacock — another respectable candidate — split the grown-up vote, letting you squeak by on the vapors of the Ron Paul Revolution and the advocacy of fired-up youth who thought Facebooking votes is a sign of virtue.

You are from West Michigan. You know as well as I do that the people here — the actual voters, not the Country Club Republicans here who pull the strings — are a sensible lot. We don’t like unnecessary and counterproductive conflict or obviously self-aggrandizing behavior. We favor quiet competence over flashy showmanship, which is why we have a long track record of electing men like Vern Ehlers, Paul Henry, Hal Sawyer and Gerald Ford to the House of Representatives. That’s why giants of the Senate like Arthur Vandenberg hailed from Grand Rapids, too. We favor substance over symbolism. We like our leaders to matter, and we reward them with re-election when they do.

During your first term, your whole communication apparatus seemed to consist solely of Facebook and Twitter. You’ve been the black sheep of the 112th Congress, bucking leaders so often on so many issues that people stopped trying to persuade you about anything. No one heard much about you, except for odd commentary about you being the lone Republican dissenter on bills — with your dissent rooted in distinctly Libertarian interpretations of the Constitution that differ in important ways from the ideals of mainstream contemporary conservatism.

(Seriously? Voting “present” on defunding Planned Parenthood or NPR because the operative legislation might be a bill of attainder? And then apparently believing that out of all the members of the House, you alone have the penetrating insight into the Constitution to see a bill of attainder for what it is? Chutzpah!)

It wasn’t until you got the boot from Budget that people really started to notice you. And we noticed because you decided to break your radio silence with a series of blistering, ill-formed attacks on the House GOP leadership.

Word on the street among your real-life constituents (as opposed to your make-believe constituents at Reason): You’ve embarrassed us. Your reaction to being removed from Budget has all the hallmarks of a temper tantrum, complete with idle threats against the Speaker and infantile protests that you’re the only one out there who’s actually a conservative — that the rest are spineless Beltway types who’ve failed the Reagan Revolution.

As John Stossel would say: Give. Me. A. Break. A real leader wouldn’t conspire over an ill-fated coup against the sitting Speaker; a real leader would have met privately with the Speaker to smooth things out in private, without affecting an air of entitlement about something as inconsequential in the long run as a committee seat. In fact, this whole Budget kerfuffle should never have happened — first, because you shouldn’t have treated the party that elected you as if it were some sort of annoyance to be dismissed at will; and second, because when you finally felt the consequences of your behavior, the right response was to seek redress of your grievances in private.

What do you expect when you’re an unreliable member of the caucus who snipes from afar? Do you think you’ll be coddled and empowered? Did you really expect Speaker Boehner or Leader Cantor or Chairman Ryan to say, “Hey Justin, thanks for being a great Monday-morning quarterback whom we can’t count on when the chips are down; how’d you like a raise and promotion?” Politics is, and always has been, about the art of balancing the possible against the ideal. Open revolt and unreliable allies make it harder to tip the scale closer to that ideal, so effective leaders will minimize this disruption for the benefit of the greater good at the expense of the black sheep.

With Barack Obama in the White House and Harry Reid calling the shots in the Senate, the power of the House of Representatives is circumscribed by reality. Yes, the House GOP should fight for the best deal possible on every issue of public policy that comes up for debate. But the best deal possible in this climate isn’t going to be the most ideologically pure solution. That’s just reality. We can lament it all we like — and boy, do I lament it! — but we cannot escape it. To think that the House alone can force fiscal sanity upon the nation by simply digging in deep enough is, I believe, delusional. You know: Baby, bathwater.

Worse, our focus as a party and as the conservative movement is substantially harmed by the infighting that arises from battles to prove who’s purest. We need to fight Obama and Reid and Pelosi, not each other.

Congressman, on a purely personal level I don’t much care if you oppose the House leadership. I don’t care if you write 10,000-word essays on Facebook about your votes. Just as I am not a fan of childish dissent, I’m also not a fan of lock-step conformism, and I believe that Libertarians have just as much right to seek to influence public policy as conservatives and liberals. I’m not asking you to change your beliefs or to stop articulating your personal perspective — I am, however, asking you to change your behavior and your voting pattern. I’m asking you to recognize that you represent the people of the Third District — a people who aren’t doctrinaire liberarians — and to behave in a manner that seeks our best interests and reflects our innate dispositions. We didn’t elect you to be Ron Paul’s designated heir.

Please don’t act as if you’re some sort of martyr being silenced by a corrupt establishment. You’re not, and protests to the contrary reflect poorly on we hard-working folks in West Michigan who yearn for leadership instead of drama. Actions have consequences, and the consequence of abandoning your party and your leadership is that you’re not going to be granted access to the levers of power. Them’s the rubs. Deal with it and quit the public whining and sniping. Please.

One more thing. With the 2010 redistricting, your constituency has changed. Not many local politics watchers are confident that the Second Coming of Ron Paul will be able to hold this re-formed district in the long haul. You were damned lucky that the local Dems had a bloody enough primary season that Steve Pestka was mortally wounded before the fight began. Next time, you might not be so lucky; already, locals are showing their decided lack of amusement in your antics. I’ve even heard whispers of a primary challenge in 2014.

There’s a battle afoot, in Kent County as well as other communities across America. Sometimes the struggle is pitched as “Tea Party versus Establishment,” but this characterization isn’t quite right. It’s more like a struggle between the pragmatists and idealists. The idealists have made inroads recently, but the pragmatists are fighting back.

Congressman Amash, I implore you: Stop being a source of distraction and an agent of fragmentation. Given the choice, the people of the Third District would rather see you be a loyal Republican over a dogmatic Libertarian. We want news about you to be positive — that you’ve written a great bill or brokered a valuable deal. We grow weary of headlines about you launching coup attempts and declining to support conservative causes over pet Constitutional theories that only you seem to find.

We want a Member of Congress who fights for us. For all of us. You have the potential to get there — but will you be a leader or a bomb-thrower? I’m praying for the former.

Regards and best wishes,

P.S. — If Speaker Boehner ever does decide to visit Grand Rapids, he’ll have a warm welcome by a whole lot of us, even if you decide to sit at home and play on Facebook.

Philosophy, Politics & Culture

Of Bread, Circuses and Ovaries

No Comments

The 99 percent. The 47 percent. Sandra Fluke. Cardinal Dolan versus Secretary Sebelius. Single women giving 68 percent of their vote to Barack Obama. Each of these talking points waltzes around a thorny problem for American governance: The challenge of entitlement reform in a culture with far too many fallen soldiers in its “little platoons.”

The GOP consultant class, diving into the post-election crosstabs, are trying to make rain for themselves by noting “unexpected” electoral trends, like the rate of single women going for the Democrats. Although I certainly applaud their zeal to keep themselves employed, their potential future employers ought to ask, How did you clowns not see coming a trend as old as the Roman Empire and as evergreen as Tocqueville?

It’s a commonplace for economists to claim that people are fundamentally rational. In the aggregate, people tend to make prudent short- and long-term choices that redound to their own advantage. That’s why economics works fairly well as a predictive theory.

Concurrently, sociologists have lamented since the Moynihan Report the fracturing of the American family. The two-parent family, with a working father and a homemaking mother and a typical family size above the population-replenishment rate, is transitioning. Single parenthood, divorce, the sociocultural legitimization of same-sex attraction — these pressures have modified the political and economic calculus that the average citizen must factor. Cultural conservatives have done much to decry these shifts but precious little to change them apart from sitting on the sidelines offering boos and hisses.

Thus, the question: If it’s culturally and economically viable for a single female to thrive on her own terms — as promiscuous or as chaste as she wishes; married or unmarried; barren or fecund; straight or gay; obligated to her family or not — then what’s her Plan B when family and network support aren’t up to the task?

I’m not talking about the morning-after pill. Human society has always emphasized intergenerational support as a mechanism for protecting against illness, injury or old age. Within kin networks, in your youth you relied on your parents and grandparents, and in your old age you relied on your children. Extended family helped, too, and in many places affinity groups — churches, benevolent associations, labor unions — pitched in to cover gaps. Once upon a time we called these institutions “civil society.”

The atomization of the family and the turn toward more robust and unhindered individualism turned this model on its head. For many, many people — and most especially, single females — Plan B isn’t family or a social network, but the promise of baseline support from the government.

Yes, many Republicans mouth their outrage at this turn of events. Yet whether the sound bite is Romney’s 47 percent remark or Rush Limbaugh’s idea of a “nation of takers,” the reality is that a sizeable proportion of the population has no other reliable catastrophic fallback. No savings, no spouse, too small of a family. Only Big Government is positioned to fill the gap, and without that backstop, a person’s just one step away from the abyss with no safety net at the bottom.

And you know what? This trust in providential government is rational. Trusting the government to care for you, when you have no one else who will, provides psychological comfort. It’s also economically rational. Thus, voters will support politicians who protect their Plan B.

The conservative talking-points on Big Government ring hollow with folks who trust Uncle Sam to catch them if they fall. Part of this disconnect might be simple cognitive dissonance: People support “caring government” for others as a sign of enlightened social compassion without acknowledging that their support is partially selfish. Sometimes — look, for example, at the Occupy nonsense — a trust in government is a convenient outlet for envy.

In any case, a message of “smaller government” that “gets out of your life” appeals to people who follow the older life plan of larger families, connected local networks and wealth-building thrift. If you don’t have that infrastructure behind you, all you’re hearing is “we’re taking away your safety net, you leeches.” Appeals to fiscal restraint become too academic, too coldly calculating to resonate — especially when the “other side” argues that that the cost savings will simply revert to the wealthy.

The Republicans have a real rhetorical deficit on this point. I worry, though, that the Democrats have an even worse problem: Eventually, someone’s going to have to pay the bill. When you offer bread and circuses on the public dime, the public is going to demand that you get the dimes from somewhere. When the sources dry up, so also does the public benefit. When that happens ….

Democrats have been disingenuous about entitlement reform. It’s as if they believe they can find ways to fund a generous welfare state indefinitely, contrary to the experience of social democracies across Europe. Raising taxes on the wealthy won’t cut it, and they know it, but just like the Republican refuse to concede that that they’ve lost the culture war, the Democrats refuse to concede … math.

We’re therefore facing the odd problem of two major political parties cum ideologies that could be positioned to take up a reform mantle within their scope of interest, but instead pick incoherent fights with straw men.Republicans should probably lay off the moralizing about the shift away from the Eisenhower-style family. Democrats should probably stop lying about entitlement spending.

Either way, the next few decades will prove fascinating. The premise of American government rests on intermediary institutions and federalism to check the popular excesses that appear at the federal level. The more we take knock down those barriers, the more likely it is that our worst impulses will be unimpeded by our best instincts.

Philosophy, Politics & Culture

Post-Election Reflection: 10 Ideas for Conservative Renewal

1 Comment

Another election, another set of mixed messages from the electorate at large. And another round of self-flagellation by the Conservative Commentariat coupled with ill-advised gloating from the Left.

Core message: No cause for alarm, but there’s clearly opportunity to ponder course corrections and work on infrastructure. We need to get past the “America’s a center-right Reaganesque country” wishful thinking and take seriously the challenges presented by contemporary progressive ideology. We also must heed John Paul II’s sage counsel at his own election: Be not afraid. For with John Boehner in the House, the relative risk of untrammeled liberalism remains low. We didn’t get the win we wanted, but we did get status quo.

The comments that follow are shaped, in large part, from reading the last few days’ commentary from sources as diverse as FireDogLake, NRO, RedState, Salon, Talking Points Memo and Weekly Standard. The two Jays — Cost and Nordlinger — and The Three Wise Elders of Moe Lane, Peggy Noonan and George Will have contributed disproportionately to the analysis that follows.

  1. Don’t blame Romney.  Mitt Romney wasn’t a bad candidate. He ran a decent campaign. Some on the Right didn’t like him — such is an inevitability — but his campaign wasn’t a disaster. So don’t blame the Romney/Ryan ticket for losing. They ran a solid and honorable race. The GOP cannot move forward if scapegoating the nominee substitutes for genuine soul-searching.
  2. State-level organizations need fresh blood and a healthy dose of pragmatism. The GOP’s U.S. Senate holding in 2013 will consist of 45 seats. Conventional wisdom is that had Lugar not been successfully primaried by Mourdock, Indiana would have been a safe Republican seat. Had Akin not put his foot in his mouth, he probably would have easily trumped McCaskill. In 2010, the GOP put forth exceptionally weak candidates in Sharron Angle, Ken Buck and Christine O’Donnell. With better candidates, the GOP could easily have tied or even eked out a slender majority in the Senate by this point. The problem in these races isn’t the alleged “Establishment Republicans” intervening but rather of weak conveyors of candidates at the state level. For every satisfactory challenger to the status quo like Marco Rubio, you get the self-proclaimed witch that’s Christine O’Donnell. Worse, there’s every sign that that Tea Party has simply tried to insert itself into local politics at the precinct level, working their folks into the GOP’s base, so the GOP will continue to field subpar candidates as long as seasoned veterans and neophyte firebrands continue to battle in a way that leaves the Buckley Rule in tatters. State leadership really needs to recruit strong candidates and get them on a pathway to nomination victory early. Internecine warfare at the state level gives us a candidate-selection system that’s basically a giant Roulette wheel: You might get good, you might get bad, but no one knows until the primary’s over. (And like any game of Roulette, the House — the DNC — has an edge.)
  3. Nurture local volunteers. GOP efforts on election day, frankly, sucked — for the second presidential cycle in a row. The GOTV effort was dwarfed by the Obama campaign. This problem starts at the precinct and county levels. Too many Republicans prefer faux grassroots office over actually doing the hard work of building coalitions. When my own county GOP organization refuses to return phone calls and emails, and campaigns that do call (thank you, Pete Hoekstra) nevertheless don’t seem to align skills/experience with the nature of their requests, the question is: WTF? Maybe it’s a West Michigan thing, but it really seems like we have a substantial barrier at the grassroots level, with local GOP potentates acting complacent in their self-importance while the Dems run organizational circles around them. Case in point: My paperwork to be a precinct delegate this year “didn’t get filed” because I’m in the same precinct as the county chairman and he wanted to cast a ballot for his wife for some nominated office or something. But in our precinct, there was no effective GOP presence. No flyers, no door-to-door, no one to challenge Democrat yard signs in public easements. You’d think the precinct with the county chair could at least maintain a degree of visibility despite our overwhelming +D territory.
  4. The consultants deserve the boot. The scandal over Project ORCA and dumbfounded reaction of the RNC and the Romney campaign over actual voting results — when the Dems were basically dead-on accurate — suggests that the Republicans need to set aside the self-proclaimed smarter-than-thou campaign consultants and assemble leadership teams more nimble and less prone to score-settling. The performance of folks like Rick Beeson and Zach Moffatt this cycle, and Rick Davis and John Weaver for McCain, is beyond shameful. We don’t need consultants, we need candidates who know what it takes to win.
  5. The GOP needs better data scientists.  I pity Neil Newhouse, the veteran GOP pollster; he seems like a sharp fellow but he hasn’t kept up with the times. Polling science isn’t what it used to be, and the GOP has clearly fallen far behind — they can’t even gauge the nature of the electorate, let alone its behavior. Mike Flynn argues that the institutional blindness of the Romney campaign came from its focus on metrics irrespective of the world behind those numbers. I find his point persuasive. Team Obama put its data scientists at the heart of the campaign and built everything else around them; Team Romney put the consultants at the heart and they cherry-picked the polls to meet their metrics and in so doing, lost sight of the real dynamic within the campaign.
  6. Conservatism needs to move beyond binary policy preferences. The very chaos of the Democratic coalition is, in a sense, also its biggest strength: You can deviate more from the party platform and still be a “good Democrat” to much greater degree than within the GOP. Nowhere is this trend more obvious than on gay marriage: The Dems favor it, by and large, but opposition isn’t a disqualifier (q.v., black preachers); on the GOP side, vocal opposition seems to be something of a litmus test, especially among the cultural conservatives. What galls about this is that “strengthening marriage” as a campaign slogan is exclusively about gay marriage — whereas in truth, the problems with marriage as a sociocultural institution run far deeper than that and are rooted in shifting norms among heterosexual youth such that gay marriage isn’t even a dot on the radar screen. Or take environmentalism: Many like to dismiss global warming as a “hoax” but why bother picking a fight about science when you could follow Roger Scruton’s brilliant advice about promoting conservation rooted in loving where you live? If the GOP adopted Scruton’s advice wholesale, we’d probably neutralize “environment” as a political issue within a fortnight. Policy positions should not be distilled into a false binary-choice slogan about about some isolated aspect of a larger and more complex issue.
  7. Think carefully about turnout in light of state and local ballot proposals.  People who are less inclined to vote for individual politicians may nevertheless be induced to vote because of specific ballot initiatives and referenda. In Michigan, for example, we had six significant proposals that drew voters, and Grand Rapids — the state’s second-largest city — included a controversial marijuana-decriminalization proposal that ended up passing. Gay marriage won at the ballot in four states. Guess who showed up to vote? Republicans really need to get ahead of ballot initiatives.
  8. Articulate a coherent, positive message. It feels like the GOP is the party of “no” — no new ideas, no bold policy innovations, no willingness to work for the best interest of the common treasury. Conservatism in the Goldwater-Reagan era, bolstered by National Review and Firing Line, rose to the defense of a conservative movement that articulated bold visions and the polices to execute them: Defeat the Soviet Union, lower taxes from 70-percent highs, deregulate massive investments like telecoms and the airlines. Yay for us, we did it: The Soviet Union has been consigned to the ash heap of history, many industries have deregulated and tax rates are relatively low. So what’s next? No one knows. A vision that’s “smaller and smarter” doesn’t actually mean anything in the real world. A vision to defeat America’s enemies abroad in 2012 doesn’t mean staring down Brezhnev, it means fighting dozens of terrorist movements across the globe, but no one wants to do the work that such an effort would entail. Lowering taxes incessantly does have a minimal ceiling given that we can’t effect a zero-percent rate. So, what’s the vision? What’s the reason to vote for Republican’s that isn’t, fundamentally, a reaction against a progressive initiative? When will Republicans define their own platform instead of defining it against the opposition? The GOP can’t win when it’s presenting to the electorate nothing more than a referendum on progressivism without any real, substantive, positive alternative.
  9. Evacuate the bubble. Having despaired of the left-leaning influence of major cultural institutions like the mainstream media and Hollywood and the Ivory Tower, conservatives opted to erect something of an opposite number. Instead of moderating the left-wing pull of these institutions, we built our own in opposition. Thus, instead of pulling the major news networks and newspapers more toward the center, we relied on Fox News and The Washington Times and the WSJ editorial board to serve as balance. Instead of fighting for conservatism within the classroom, we built Ave Maria University and Liberty University. Instead of mainstreaming Republican sensibilities within Hollywood, we get 2016: Obama’s America. The inevitable outcome is that too many conservatives don’t need to fight for their beliefs anymore — they can just sit in the echo chamber. Of course, the rest of the country still gets left-leaning content, so we really haven’t solved the problem. I’d rather see MSNBC and Fox News both go away if it meant that the mainstream press operated from a more fundamentally balanced perspective.
  10. Stop giving shade to irrational policy preferences under the Tree of Conservatism. I’m still at a loss to understand why some particular policy preferences are considered conservative. It seems like certain groups — like evangelicals — have had their beliefs canonized, despite the very legitimate problems that these beliefs incur vis-a-vis pure conservative principles. For example, it’s more conservative to reform the institution of marriage (possibly, to include same-sex marriage) than to hold to a sectarian vision from the Eisenhower years that clearly doesn’t hold any longer. It’s more conservative to focus on fair-use conservation than to reject all environmental policy. It’s more conservative to tax at the “right” rates than to play a screwy game of tax tiers and sundry credits and deductions. It’s more conservative to embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of immigration through smart regulation than to demonize “illegals” with a broad brush. It’s more conservative to bolster federalism and local control than to consent to the federalization of policies that some conservatives favor. The GOP, as the conservative party, must elevate conservative principles — but those principles shouldn’t be retrofitted to legitimize policy preferences that aren’t authentically conservative just because coalition members favor them for non-ideological reasons.

Ten theses. Ten ideas for course correction for the GOP and the conservative movement. I make no claim to being a Wise Guy who knows what’s best. I do pay attention to many different sources and see too much sophomoric reasoning substituting for informed policy-making and too much inside-the-bubble wishful thinking substitute for honest analysis.

I don’t think the GOP is in decline. I don’t think the Dems are on a long upswing. I think right now, the GOP has ample opportunity to fine-tune its operations and re-think some pernicious policy preferences that don’t really belong to conservatism.

More than anything, I think John Paul the Great was right: Be not afraid.

Philosophy, Politics & Culture, Religion

Observations re: Obamacare at SCOTUS, Contraception, Trayvon Martin, the Ryan Budget, Etch-a-Sketches & Science

No Comments

UPDATE: This post reflects an earlier draft, not the final one. Seems WordPress ate the final edit when the coffee shop suffered a Wi-Fi blip. Please forgive typos, grammar problems, and missing hyperlinks. Ill try to re-edit tonight. JEG 4/2/12.

UPDATE 2:  Lightly revised. JEG 4/8/12. 

Bear with me; there’s a lot on the docket (so to speak).

N.B. — This post clocks in at roughly 2,300 words. I’ve bolded the various sections so you can read only the content that interests you.

Obamacare and the High Court

So picture it: The District of Columbia, 2012. The federal capital seized up in gyrations of agony and ecstasy as our black-robed overlords grace us with the gift of their public hearings on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Conservatives delighted in both the slap-down delivered to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and the paroxysms of rage the SG’s performance induced among the progressive commentariat. Some liberals took solace in their Kennedyology, trying to predict how the “swing justice” will rule by divining hints from questions posed by the learned jurist (augmented, no doubt, by a careful reading of the cracks upon heated chicken bones) and suggesting that the court could uphold the law 6-3.

Well.

The Court will do as the Court will do. More intriguing was the general sense among the Left that Obamacare’s constitutionality is a slam-dunk. Across the board, from Verrilli to the lowest FDL blogger, the progressive movement as a whole doesn’t seem to have seriously considered the conservative counter-argument. Verrilli was caught unprepared for questions that conservatives have been asking, loudly, for two years. If you thought Speaker Pelosi’s “Are you serious?” stammering about the constitutional authority of the statute was just Nancy being Nancy, think again.  It’s not for nothing that most of the left-wing legal commentators made a point of referring to justices by ideological label as they summarized the questioning, and it’s an excellent case study in the politics of ideological echo chambers that CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin went from a “strong uphold” to a “OMG, all is lost” based solely on two hours of questioning.

I won’t predict what the Court will do. I will hazard a guess, though, that if the Supremes strike down the mandate (or even the entire PPACA) then we will endure long and loud laments about the Court is too right-wing or that it’s engaging in judicial over-reach or that it’s no longer a legitimate reflector of American virtues and requires radical reform. The Left loves the judiciary until the judiciary proves non-compliant; then the judges become black-robed tyrants. Yawn-worthy in its predictability.

I hope the entire law gets voided. We need to hit the “reset button” on health reform. As a person whose day job lives within a hospital revenue cycle, I can tell you that the real financial crisis for health care isn’t access to insurance, but in the lack of meaningful patient financial participation in the system. It’s as if you’ve got insurance, so you don’t care about pricing or service utilization. To effect a real “bending of the cost curve,” we need to cut out unnecessary tests and procedures (read: tort reform) and give patients meaningful skin in the game about what their treatments really cost. Consumer-driven health care, with high-deductible plans and HSAs to bridge the gap,  makes more sense than mandatory free-lunch coverage. Until you change behaviors and attitudes, no amount of tinkering with the reimbursement model will prove viable in the long run.

[Note: My opinions on health reform are my own and don’t reflect my hospital’s position on this subject.]

Contraception — The Bishops and the Flake

What’s not to love about a good public row about contraception?

This sordid tale of social discontent started during the final votes on Obamacare. To secure passage, the administration had to promise a gaggle of Congresscritters, led by former Rep. Bart Stupak, that the feds wouldn’t upset the abortion apple cart. Obama agreed, providing a wholly insubstantial fig leaf that conservatives decried but let Pelosi and Hoyer get the Senate’s astonishingly incoherent bill to the President’s desk.

Fast forward to 2012: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces regulations that force pretty much everyone to cover abortion and contraception services as part of their employer-provided health insurance (so much for that Executive Order, eh Bart?). A storm of protest follows, led by the Catholic bishops. Who, may I proudly add, finally figured out that they really do have spines.

The administration made another make-believe deal but the USCCB rejected it, as did many other conservative and evangelical groups. The drama continues to unfold. But when the House of Representatives got involved, the story took a different turn. Denied the chance to present witnesses for timing reasons at one of Issa’s hearings, the Democrats made Georgetown law student Sandra Flake their poster girl for contraception. That this 30-something grad student at Georgetown should be considered an ideal role model, I find baffling. But there you have it.

The Democrats announced a Republican “war on women.” Republicans were not amused, but then Rush Limbaugh intervened with his infamous “slut” screed and soon the issue blew far out of proportion. Media Matters tried (and woefully failed) to attack Limbaugh. Bill Maher and Louis C.K. earned targets. Hypocrisy raged in typical MSM/Washington style.

Here’s the thing, though:

  1. Contraception in the form of condoms isn’t hard to find. Most bars and health centers have them. If you can’t find a free condom, then something’s seriously wrong with you. Especially if you live in a metro area. Like, ummm … THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Heck, you can grab free condoms by the handful from any fishbowl at any self-respecting gay bar. That a grad student at one of America’s leading universities should insist that her school pay for her birth control instead of just dealing with it marks an astonishing sense of entitlement and a thought-provoking example of what’s wrong with higher education.
  2. Contraception in the form of birth-control pills aren’t expensive. Flake suggested it would cost her more than $3k per year unless her Catholic school (to which she voluntarily enrolled, knowing its character) paid the bill. Seriously? Is she buying them in platinum bottles? You could get a copper-T IUD for $647 in 2008 or now you can pay $240 per year for The Pill from Planned Parenthood clinics.
  3. If you can’t afford birth control, you always have the right to reduce your “risk” of pregnancy by curtailing your sexual activity. Seriously. Abstinence works, as does non-vaginal sexual behavior.  Point is, no person has a right to force other people to subsidize his or her sexual behavior.

But, hey. How ’bout that war on women? Apparently the politics of demonization is a heck of a lot easier than encouraging responsible behavior among people who really ought to know better.

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and Gun Control

No question, it’s a bad situation. A black Florida teen, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a “white Hispanic” (whatever that is) slightly nutty neighborhood watch patroller named George Zimmerman while the youth was cutting through a gated neighborhood. The facts in this case aren’t clear despite quite a bit of grandstanding; the evidence and witness testimony suggests that both Martin and Zimmerman made repeated, significant and avoidable errors in judgment.

Three observations:

  • This isn’t a slam-dunk case, either for or against prosecuting Zimmerman. As such, the March of the Race Brigade, led by Sharpton and Jackson, probably does more harm than good. No matter how you slice it, this isn’t a case of institutional racism. Of bad judgment? Sure. Of a police department and prosecutor’s office that may or may not be correctly interpreting Florida law? Perhaps. But this isn’t a flash point in a racial war, and every time the usual suspects come out with their manufactured outrage and their political opportunism — including yet more unnecessary meddling in local law enforcement from Barack Obama — justice for both Martin and Zimmerman fades and cynicism about race relations spikes up.
  • I’ve heard people suggest that the real problem here is Florida’s “stand your ground” statute. Florida is one of 30 states with this type of law;  it’s the converse of “duty to retreat” statutes. In Florida, if you’re attacked, you’re authorized to hold your position and fight back when confronted. The argument I’ve heard is that “stand your ground” allows too much of an escalation path for hard cases, and that less violence would result under a “duty to retreat” regime. Maybe. But it seems like rewarding violence and aggression by privileging it under the law empowers the criminals at the expense of the law-abiding.
  • The million-dollar question — and one not really subsumed under the Martin incident — is the extent to which a person is legally entitled to defend himself against aggression. Concealed-carry, castle and stand-your-ground laws represent a swing back from the over-reliance on spotty police protection. Even now, liberals are torn; on one hand, they often excoriate police departments for being hotbeds of brutality, racism and misogyny — but these same departments are the gold standard of community policing, whose mere presence justifies any opposition to more relaxed self-defense statutes. Which is it? Are the cops ignorant buffoons, or Teh Awesomz? Pick one position and stick with it, please. In any case, the presumption that civilians are incapable of exercising good judgement while police officers remain beyond reproach is blown out the water by the fact that a police officer is 11 times more likely to engage in wrongful shooting than a validly licensed citizen. (Read the link; it’s a Cato study that outlines the history of gun-control laws and reveals just how much of an innovation they really are in U.S. history.)

The Ryan Budget

Paul Ryan released a kick-ass budget that just passed the House comfortably. It reduces the deficit, moves to a premium-support model for Medicare and protects defense spending. In short: The gentleman from Wisconsin seems to be the only serious adult in Washington when it comes to spending and entitlement reform. Not only has Ryan submitted a workable model, he’s succeeded in changing the entire intellectual dynamic about taxing, spending and reform in Washington. He’s put Obama on defense.

[Read the passage story about the Ryan budget, including a summary of its major points, from WaPo, then digest commentary from Doug Schoen in Forbes.]

Three cheers for Paul Ryan.

Political Etch-a-Sketches

Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments about Romney and the political Etch-a-Sketch seem overblown. Every politician emphasizes some things in a primary race and other things in a general race. To the extent that the election in its final 12 weeks will look radically dissimilar to the GOP nomination fight, the proper reaction to Fehrnstrom’s statement is … duh.

I can understand liberals trying to make hay from his comments, but for conservatives to keep swiping at Romney — well, it feels like an ongoing tantrum. Look, guys, Romney’s our man in 2012 whether you like it or not. We’re not going to have a brokered convention. Paul won’t win the nomination. Gingrich has no path to victory and increasingly looks like a bad-faith candidate. Santrorum lacks organization and money and his negatives (even apart from his self-inflicted gaffes) make an Obama re-election seem more likely than not. At this point, whether you like it or not, the time has come to circle around Romney and focus on sending Obama back to Chicago for good.

Conservatives and Science

One of the big news stories of last week flowed from a survey that suggests that conservatives have little faith in science. Plenty of stories abound about the study; Ars Technica did a decent job of summarizing the key points.

I think the focus is a bit off. I don’t believe that conservatives distrust science per se; you don’t see many Republicans pretending like organic chemistry is a hoax or that the moon landing was staged or that the laws of physics are a left-wing conspiracy to increase taxes by denying people the ability to fly through the air like Superman. What you see, rather, is conservative distrust in what seems like increasingly obvious alignment between “scientific results” and progressive policy preferences. Like scientists, conservatives are also capable of conducting linear regressions to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Consider:

  • The theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on science that pretty much everyone acknowledges requires refinement. Climate scientists have done an excellent job of trying to piece together historical evidence of climate change. Much of it is compelling. When they’re up-front about known problems with the data, I trust their conclusions even more. But there’s a world of difference between saying, “here’s the trend over the last 2,000 years” versus “observation X is definitively caused by human behavior, and therefore we scientists must now dictate to you the specific sociopolitical reforms you must immediately execute to avoid Armageddon, conveniently written up for you by your friends from Greenpeace, so STFU and bow to the consensus we’ve manufactured by suppressing contradictory findings.” Climate science can tell — imperfectly, so far — what’s happening. It can speculate as to why. The leap from observation to political change isn’t the realm of science, however. It’s the realm of politics. When scientists insist that disaster is upon us because of our behavior, when their leaked emails note to the contrary, is it any wonder that people lose confidence in those scientists?
  • Watch the Discovery Channel or read some of the scientist profiles in higher-brow popular science magazines. One thing will strike you: No matter the discipline — and, surprisingly, one of the most susceptible seems to be theoretical physics — the group think and polarization is so high that plausible theories don’t get a hearing because senior researchers and theoreticians get an almost partisan adherence to their preferred perspective and won’t listen to countervailing ideas. Study the development of string theory for a case study. Anyone who says “science” isn’t political has never tried to advance a complex theoretical argument lately.
  • Scientists are human beings. Human beings tend to be ideological. Why, oh why, must people assume that scientists are immune to ideology? The jig is up, I think, when scientists sign on to a great number of things (the nuclear freeze, global warming scaremongering, etc.) that almost always fall on the left side of the spectrum. Gee. Can you blame conservatives for being skeptical?

All for now.

Philosophy, Politics & Culture, Religion

Observations re: Obamacare at SCOTUS, Contraception, Trayvon Martin, the Ryan Budget, Etch-a-Sketches & Science

No Comments

UPDATE: This post reflects an earlier draft, not the final one. Seems WordPress ate the final edit when the coffee shop suffered a Wi-Fi blip. Please forgive typos, grammar problems, and missing hyperlinks. Ill try to re-edit tonight. JEG 4/2/12.
UPDATE 2:  Lightly revised. JEG 4/8/12. 
Bear with me; there’s a lot on the docket (so to speak).
N.B. — This post clocks in at roughly 2,300 words. I’ve bolded the various sections so you can read only the content that interests you.
Obamacare and the High Court
So picture it: The District of Columbia, 2012. The federal capital seized up in gyrations of agony and ecstasy as our black-robed overlords grace us with the gift of their public hearings on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Conservatives delighted in both the slap-down delivered to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and the paroxysms of rage the SG’s performance induced among the progressive commentariat. Some liberals took solace in their Kennedyology, trying to predict how the “swing justice” will rule by divining hints from questions posed by the learned jurist (augmented, no doubt, by a careful reading of the cracks upon heated chicken bones) and suggesting that the court could uphold the law 6-3.
Well.
The Court will do as the Court will do. More intriguing was the general sense among the Left that Obamacare’s constitutionality is a slam-dunk. Across the board, from Verrilli to the lowest FDL blogger, the progressive movement as a whole doesn’t seem to have seriously considered the conservative counter-argument. Verrilli was caught unprepared for questions that conservatives have been asking, loudly, for two years. If you thought Speaker Pelosi’s “Are you serious?” stammering about the constitutional authority of the statute was just Nancy being Nancy, think again.  It’s not for nothing that most of the left-wing legal commentators made a point of referring to justices by ideological label as they summarized the questioning, and it’s an excellent case study in the politics of ideological echo chambers that CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin went from a “strong uphold” to a “OMG, all is lost” based solely on two hours of questioning.
I won’t predict what the Court will do. I will hazard a guess, though, that if the Supremes strike down the mandate (or even the entire PPACA) then we will endure long and loud laments about the Court is too right-wing or that it’s engaging in judicial over-reach or that it’s no longer a legitimate reflector of American virtues and requires radical reform. The Left loves the judiciary until the judiciary proves non-compliant; then the judges become black-robed tyrants. Yawn-worthy in its predictability.
I hope the entire law gets voided. We need to hit the “reset button” on health reform. As a person whose day job lives within a hospital revenue cycle, I can tell you that the real financial crisis for health care isn’t access to insurance, but in the lack of meaningful patient financial participation in the system. It’s as if you’ve got insurance, so you don’t care about pricing or service utilization. To effect a real “bending of the cost curve,” we need to cut out unnecessary tests and procedures (read: tort reform) and give patients meaningful skin in the game about what their treatments really cost. Consumer-driven health care, with high-deductible plans and HSAs to bridge the gap,  makes more sense than mandatory free-lunch coverage. Until you change behaviors and attitudes, no amount of tinkering with the reimbursement model will prove viable in the long run.
[Note: My opinions on health reform are my own and don’t reflect my hospital’s position on this subject.]
Contraception — The Bishops and the Flake
What’s not to love about a good public row about contraception?
This sordid tale of social discontent started during the final votes on Obamacare. To secure passage, the administration had to promise a gaggle of Congresscritters, led by former Rep. Bart Stupak, that the feds wouldn’t upset the abortion apple cart. Obama agreed, providing a wholly insubstantial fig leaf that conservatives decried but let Pelosi and Hoyer get the Senate’s astonishingly incoherent bill to the President’s desk.
Fast forward to 2012: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announces regulations that force pretty much everyone to cover abortion and contraception services as part of their employer-provided health insurance (so much for that Executive Order, eh Bart?). A storm of protest follows, led by the Catholic bishops. Who, may I proudly add, finally figured out that they really do have spines.
The administration made another make-believe deal but the USCCB rejected it, as did many other conservative and evangelical groups. The drama continues to unfold. But when the House of Representatives got involved, the story took a different turn. Denied the chance to present witnesses for timing reasons at one of Issa’s hearings, the Democrats made Georgetown law student Sandra Flake their poster girl for contraception. That this 30-something grad student at Georgetown should be considered an ideal role model, I find baffling. But there you have it.
The Democrats announced a Republican “war on women.” Republicans were not amused, but then Rush Limbaugh intervened with his infamous “slut” screed and soon the issue blew far out of proportion. Media Matters tried (and woefully failed) to attack Limbaugh. Bill Maher and Louis C.K. earned targets. Hypocrisy raged in typical MSM/Washington style.
Here’s the thing, though:

  1. Contraception in the form of condoms isn’t hard to find. Most bars and health centers have them. If you can’t find a free condom, then something’s seriously wrong with you. Especially if you live in a metro area. Like, ummm … THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Heck, you can grab free condoms by the handful from any fishbowl at any self-respecting gay bar. That a grad student at one of America’s leading universities should insist that her school pay for her birth control instead of just dealing with it marks an astonishing sense of entitlement and a thought-provoking example of what’s wrong with higher education.
  2. Contraception in the form of birth-control pills aren’t expensive. Flake suggested it would cost her more than $3k per year unless her Catholic school (to which she voluntarily enrolled, knowing its character) paid the bill. Seriously? Is she buying them in platinum bottles? You could get a copper-T IUD for $647 in 2008 or now you can pay $240 per year for The Pill from Planned Parenthood clinics.
  3. If you can’t afford birth control, you always have the right to reduce your “risk” of pregnancy by curtailing your sexual activity. Seriously. Abstinence works, as does non-vaginal sexual behavior.  Point is, no person has a right to force other people to subsidize his or her sexual behavior.

But, hey. How ’bout that war on women? Apparently the politics of demonization is a heck of a lot easier than encouraging responsible behavior among people who really ought to know better.
Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman and Gun Control
No question, it’s a bad situation. A black Florida teen, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a “white Hispanic” (whatever that is) slightly nutty neighborhood watch patroller named George Zimmerman while the youth was cutting through a gated neighborhood. The facts in this case aren’t clear despite quite a bit of grandstanding; the evidence and witness testimony suggests that both Martin and Zimmerman made repeated, significant and avoidable errors in judgment.
Three observations:

  • This isn’t a slam-dunk case, either for or against prosecuting Zimmerman. As such, the March of the Race Brigade, led by Sharpton and Jackson, probably does more harm than good. No matter how you slice it, this isn’t a case of institutional racism. Of bad judgment? Sure. Of a police department and prosecutor’s office that may or may not be correctly interpreting Florida law? Perhaps. But this isn’t a flash point in a racial war, and every time the usual suspects come out with their manufactured outrage and their political opportunism — including yet more unnecessary meddling in local law enforcement from Barack Obama — justice for both Martin and Zimmerman fades and cynicism about race relations spikes up.
  • I’ve heard people suggest that the real problem here is Florida’s “stand your ground” statute. Florida is one of 30 states with this type of law;  it’s the converse of “duty to retreat” statutes. In Florida, if you’re attacked, you’re authorized to hold your position and fight back when confronted. The argument I’ve heard is that “stand your ground” allows too much of an escalation path for hard cases, and that less violence would result under a “duty to retreat” regime. Maybe. But it seems like rewarding violence and aggression by privileging it under the law empowers the criminals at the expense of the law-abiding.
  • The million-dollar question — and one not really subsumed under the Martin incident — is the extent to which a person is legally entitled to defend himself against aggression. Concealed-carry, castle and stand-your-ground laws represent a swing back from the over-reliance on spotty police protection. Even now, liberals are torn; on one hand, they often excoriate police departments for being hotbeds of brutality, racism and misogyny — but these same departments are the gold standard of community policing, whose mere presence justifies any opposition to more relaxed self-defense statutes. Which is it? Are the cops ignorant buffoons, or Teh Awesomz? Pick one position and stick with it, please. In any case, the presumption that civilians are incapable of exercising good judgement while police officers remain beyond reproach is blown out the water by the fact that a police officer is 11 times more likely to engage in wrongful shooting than a validly licensed citizen. (Read the link; it’s a Cato study that outlines the history of gun-control laws and reveals just how much of an innovation they really are in U.S. history.)

The Ryan Budget
Paul Ryan released a kick-ass budget that just passed the House comfortably. It reduces the deficit, moves to a premium-support model for Medicare and protects defense spending. In short: The gentleman from Wisconsin seems to be the only serious adult in Washington when it comes to spending and entitlement reform. Not only has Ryan submitted a workable model, he’s succeeded in changing the entire intellectual dynamic about taxing, spending and reform in Washington. He’s put Obama on defense.
[Read the passage story about the Ryan budget, including a summary of its major points, from WaPo, then digest commentary from Doug Schoen in Forbes.]
Three cheers for Paul Ryan.
Political Etch-a-Sketches
Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments about Romney and the political Etch-a-Sketch seem overblown. Every politician emphasizes some things in a primary race and other things in a general race. To the extent that the election in its final 12 weeks will look radically dissimilar to the GOP nomination fight, the proper reaction to Fehrnstrom’s statement is … duh.
I can understand liberals trying to make hay from his comments, but for conservatives to keep swiping at Romney — well, it feels like an ongoing tantrum. Look, guys, Romney’s our man in 2012 whether you like it or not. We’re not going to have a brokered convention. Paul won’t win the nomination. Gingrich has no path to victory and increasingly looks like a bad-faith candidate. Santrorum lacks organization and money and his negatives (even apart from his self-inflicted gaffes) make an Obama re-election seem more likely than not. At this point, whether you like it or not, the time has come to circle around Romney and focus on sending Obama back to Chicago for good.
Conservatives and Science
One of the big news stories of last week flowed from a survey that suggests that conservatives have little faith in science. Plenty of stories abound about the study; Ars Technica did a decent job of summarizing the key points.
I think the focus is a bit off. I don’t believe that conservatives distrust science per se; you don’t see many Republicans pretending like organic chemistry is a hoax or that the moon landing was staged or that the laws of physics are a left-wing conspiracy to increase taxes by denying people the ability to fly through the air like Superman. What you see, rather, is conservative distrust in what seems like increasingly obvious alignment between “scientific results” and progressive policy preferences. Like scientists, conservatives are also capable of conducting linear regressions to arrive at reasonable conclusions.
Consider:

  • The theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on science that pretty much everyone acknowledges requires refinement. Climate scientists have done an excellent job of trying to piece together historical evidence of climate change. Much of it is compelling. When they’re up-front about known problems with the data, I trust their conclusions even more. But there’s a world of difference between saying, “here’s the trend over the last 2,000 years” versus “observation X is definitively caused by human behavior, and therefore we scientists must now dictate to you the specific sociopolitical reforms you must immediately execute to avoid Armageddon, conveniently written up for you by your friends from Greenpeace, so STFU and bow to the consensus we’ve manufactured by suppressing contradictory findings.” Climate science can tell — imperfectly, so far — what’s happening. It can speculate as to why. The leap from observation to political change isn’t the realm of science, however. It’s the realm of politics. When scientists insist that disaster is upon us because of our behavior, when their leaked emails note to the contrary, is it any wonder that people lose confidence in those scientists?
  • Watch the Discovery Channel or read some of the scientist profiles in higher-brow popular science magazines. One thing will strike you: No matter the discipline — and, surprisingly, one of the most susceptible seems to be theoretical physics — the group think and polarization is so high that plausible theories don’t get a hearing because senior researchers and theoreticians get an almost partisan adherence to their preferred perspective and won’t listen to countervailing ideas. Study the development of string theory for a case study. Anyone who says “science” isn’t political has never tried to advance a complex theoretical argument lately.
  • Scientists are human beings. Human beings tend to be ideological. Why, oh why, must people assume that scientists are immune to ideology? The jig is up, I think, when scientists sign on to a great number of things (the nuclear freeze, global warming scaremongering, etc.) that almost always fall on the left side of the spectrum. Gee. Can you blame conservatives for being skeptical?

All for now.

Philosophy, Politics & Culture

Saul Alinsky, Reconsidered

1 Comment

My friend Duane loves it when people attribute political ruthlessness and dishonesty to Machiavelli. The Prince is one of those books that all the literati think they understand but never bothered to read; Machiavelli’s actual writings were much more pragmatic, with a strong ethical undercurrent, than the popular misconceptions would credit.

Apparently, the same phenomenon holds for Saul Alinsky. As a red-meat-eating, cigar-smoking, whiskey-drinking, dyed-in-the-wool Republican, I’ve listened to the anti-Alinsky propaganda for years. You know the type: Obama is an Alinskyite, and we all know those Alinskyites are pinko commie bastards who want a Soviet-style Revolution that elevates the brain-washed union workers and tears down the mighty citadel of Capital.

But … not so much, it seems, if you look at what the man actually says.

A few days ago, I purchased Rules for Radicals; I began reading it last night. I’m not too far in — I’ve covered the prologue and the first chapter, “The Purpose.” What I’ve read reveals a man and a mission that don’t quite mesh with the dehumanization of the mad activist as caricatured by the far right. Although I reserve the right to be horrified by the chapters yet to come, so far Alinsky seems far more reasonable — in principle, anyway — than the angry diatribes from Limbaugh and Hannity would have led me to believe.

A few salient points:

  • Alinsky, writing in 1971, seems to think the radical student movement with its violence and nihilism was a Very Bad Idea (here, we agree). He professes a deep respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law. Indeed, what I know of his history suggests that this isn’t merely lip service. Alinsky sometimes played dirty, but he generally didn’t advocate operating outside of the law.
  • He apparently has no love for communism, arguing strongly in favor of American patriotism and against the murderous collectivism of Russia, China and Cuba. For example, he thinks that the 1968 radicals were idiots for burning the American flag, because the alternative isn’t communitarian utopia but totalitarianism. Alinsky doesn’t appear to hold any illusions about the virtues of the very far left, which he argues becomes indistinguishable from the very far right.
  • He views the world dualistically; there are good/evil, rich/poor, etc., etc., dichotomies. Not much appreciation for shades of grey, except insofar as he points (correctly, I think) to the push/pull relationship of the middle class relative to the very rich and very poor. I’m not sure I like this framework — it seems dangerously simplistic — but it explains much about the why of some his theory. His whole intellectual apparatus appears colored by a contemporary Manichaeism.
  • He seems to respect one of Tocqueville’s core theses — that America works best when there’s a healthy mediating layer of civil society that buffers and guides the nation in its relationship between a single person and government. To the extent that his professed goal is to empower individuals to live happy, healthy and free lives, he recognizes that part of the radicals’ struggle is to keep those mediating institutions on the level.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not an Alinskyite and will not become one. As much as Alinsky claims to be non-ideological, only the Progressive Left seems attracted to his modus vivendi, and as long as the sort of “radical change” he articulates effectively works like a leftward-twisting ratchet, then Alinsky’s approach is functionally ideological — even, were one to be charitable about it, if the ideology is a manifestation of later misappropriation instead of being inherent to the system as he defined it.

More to the point: Radical change of any kind requires polarization to get people to accept strategies that fall outside the centrist norm. He apparently defines strategies to effect this polarization later in the book, but the general principle is this: You identify a problem; you mobilize support by presenting positive arguments while simultaneously isolating/demonizing your opposition; you keep it up until you can score a success at the ballot box; you declare victory and move on to the next target. This strategy requires the manipulation of voters through tactics both thuggish and outlandish. In the end, the idea unspoken premise is that the average voter is a dolt who needs to be “guided” to the preferred position of the activists at the ballot box, whence the activists derive their claim to moral authority.

I don’t favor the broad outlines of Alinsky’s approach, for three reasons:

  1. I don’t like activists. At all. Of any stripe. (Hey, I’m a conservative by dispositon.) Activists work outside the system to pressure people to engage in specific behaviors that they otherwise wouldn’t countenance: Think, for example, of the Occupy movement. If something needs to be changed, then change it. From the inside — Win elections. Write laws. Persuade voters to adopt them. Don’t play the outside pressure game to short-circuit the process. And for the record, I don’t even care much for “my” activists; you won’t see me standing at a Life Chain, for example.
  2. Alinsky’s formula for radical change, rooted as it is in a pseudo-Manichaeist worldview, requires a black-and-white split of virtue to remain tenable. Activists are good people; people who oppose the activists are bad people who must be shamed and punished for their bad attitudes. The political struggle therefore becomes one of good versus evil, with the opportunity for finding a middle way eroding with every passing epithet. Wonder why Congress is polarized? It’s practically a case study in Alinskyism at work. More to the point, solutions that hail from a distinct ideology are rarely a good idea; better that people of varying perspectives gather around a complex problem and negotiate a solution than to push for an all-or-nothing resolution.
  3. The politics of shame-and-conquer rewards the outrageous and the audacious, but the virtuous and the commonsensical may thereby suffer. When voters — many of whom may lack a deep understanding of the situation — cast their ballot for the best “show,” politics descends to the level of ancient Greek juries. You know the kind: The person who won the case earned favor through theatrics rather than from having more solid legal grounds for victory. Like OJ Simpson, but I digress. The political becomes the personal, and voters are manipulated to vote for people rather than for objective, well-thought policy. This is a part of why the hard Left is much more invested in the politics of personal demonization than the hard Right. Case in point: The Matthew Shepard murder in 1989 and the James Byrd Jr. murder in 1998. Very bad people tortured and killed innocent men because of race (Byrd) or sexual orientation (Shepard). These were horrific crimes, and the perpetrators deserved severe punishment. But for the hard Left, punishment wasn’t enough; with a cast of heroes in villains conveniently supplied by each murder, radical activists pushed for bias-crime legislation to make “hate crimes” more legally offensive than other crimes. Such a position was opportunistic; lost in the torrent of outrage against the criminals was any meaningful defense of the First Amendment and the silliness of criminalizing bad opinions. But those who defended freedom of thought — even odious thought — were themselves demonized as closet racists, sexists or homophobes. In the Alinsky world, discrediting your opponents is fair game no matter how reprehensible the tactic as long as you advance the chance of a political victory.

The above notwithstanding, the more of Alinsky I read, the more I simultaneously see his theory at work in various strands of contemporary Progressive Left politics, and the more sympathetic I am to Alinsky as a political thinker. I will never be a disciple of his, but engaging his thought directly — instead of the caricature presented in the conservative media — gives me a deeper respect for the man as a noble adversary rather than a demonic bomb-thrower.

And if his tactics can be unleashed on the Progressive Left, so much the better.

Politics & Culture

It Goes to 11: Ideology and the Increase in Ad Hominem Political Discourse

No Comments

A wise man will study the opinions from all sides of a question to improve his knowledge of the underlying dispute. Whether this scribe counts among the wise is open to debate, but modeling the behaviors of the wise is surely a start, on the theory that a journey of a thousand steps begins by letting a hundred flowers bloom.  As such, although I’m a center-right conservative, I frequently read the perspectives of libertarians, liberals, socialists, anarchists, reactionaries, centrists — the rich range of contemporary political discourse. I’ve found this engagement has helped me to better define my own arguments while occasionally giving me an opportunity to correct various distortions or elisions that “my” side may perpetrate, sometimes accidentally and sometimes not.  I’ve even changed opinions on some things (e.g., civil unions) based on reasoned argumentation posed from outside my tribal echo chamber.

Alas, over the last few years, it seems that the investment in this process pays ever smaller dividends.

What fascinates are two simultaneous trends, both fueled by bloggers.

First, within the conservative movement, the mainstreaming of a handful of influential bloggers has led to a sharpening of the knives — with blades directed inward. The folks at Red State are perhaps the most top-of-mind, but they’re not the only ones. Divorced from the need to actually win elections, they content themselves to play the kingmaker, with ideological purity and loyalty to a self-defined “conservative base” serving as the paramount virtues.  That folks like Erick Erickson and the activists at Heritage Action believe they’re empowered to define what constitutes authentic conservatism (i.e., “what Mitt Romney isn’t”) is bad enough; that more established and more prudent voices haven’t mounted a healthy defense of a more robust and well-rounded definition of contemporary conservatism smacks of kowtowing to the barbarians at the gate without even bothering to pour flaming oil o’er the rampart to see if the ruffians will scatter.

Second, within the progressive movement, it seems like snark and invective increasingly substitute for coherent argument. Once upon a time — those far-away days of the second term of the Bush administration — I’d read the headlines from FireDogLake or Talking Points Memo; although I rarely agreed, at least on balance I’d encounter well-formed opinions to make the effort worthwhile. Nowadays, vulgar epithets reign supreme and simply asserting that someone is a Very Bad Person is considered the “QED” part of the argument. Contemporary progressive bloggers — with notable exceptions like Hamsher, Kaus and Mitchell — usually engage in more spleen-venting than discourse, and bumper-sticker sloganeering constitutes the breadth and depth of most progressive writing nowadays. Even local bloggers get in on the act; Michigan Liberal refuses to refer to Gov. Rick Snyder as anything but “benevolent overlord Rick Michigan.”

And don’t get me started on the libertarians; reading Reason sometimes enlightens, sometimes infuriates, with clear fact-based reasoning in one piece and smug condescension dripping from the next. The ultimate political box of chocolates.

So. Picture American ideology as a spectrum. It’s not black-or-white, or even a tri-color bar. Instead, it’s a sliding scale of opinion animated by value judgments that date to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Inasmuch as some would like to identify a laundry list of personal policy preferences and ascribe them as the only authentic form of whatever -ism they favor, the average person doesn’t break into a clear, pure ideological archetype. Except, of course, for politicians who vote according to their ideology, but that’s more a matter of cynicism than belief.

In the current environment, some conservative bloggers are looking more and more like mafioso enforcers, whereas progressive bloggers are looking more and more like spoiled six-year-olds simultaneously deprived of a favorite toy and effective parenting.

Is it any wonder that people feel like contemporary political discourse is more polarized?

The parallel to institutional Catholicism is astonishing. Over the years, bishops largely stopped exercising the role of moral authority, delegating those functions to those with an agenda more politically tactical than ecclesiologically strategic. The bishops wasted their moral capital, to the point that even Barack Obama thought he could roll the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over the recent contraception flap.

In like manner, mainline political leaders either ignored the problem of hyper-aggressive activists or pandered to them. Very few have actually stood up to them in a meaningful fashion, despite that they don’t really represent even their respective bases.  Where’s WFB’s successor when we need him? Or the next Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

Instead, we have weak political leaders who respond more readily to a small sliver of their home ideology’s activist base than to the demands of responsible governance.

I’m not sure that America is substantially more polarized, recent statistics notwithstanding. I think people are more willing to fit themselves into certain canned ideological categories, but much like with ethics, no one really fits well into a single bucket. The difference is that it’s easier in the Age of the Internet for self-appointed commissars of purity to purge their ideological segment of the kulaks than for political leaders to stand up to the bullying.

Just like with the bishops in the 1960s and 1970s, but I digress.

The TL;DR version: If you’re tired of increasing ideological polarization, look no further than the unchecked ad hominems flowing from those who’ve been most successful at seizing the megaphone. Until political leaders step up and actually lead, we can look forward to more of the same.