The President and the Senate have agreed to a new deal on immigration this afternoon. At this moment, I feel like I would have to oppose it.
I support any comprehensive reform legislation that does not grant amnesty, and have disagreed with many in my party who have argued that previous comprehensive proposals have. But prima facie, this piece of legislation does exactly that. It would grant "probationary" legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the country immediately upon passage, apparently without any subsequent process through which they would have to go through to become permanently legal.
This is unacceptable. The legislation provides for no punishment whatsoever for immigrants who have come into this country in violation of United States law, a base reward for illegality and an insult to those immigrants who actually went through the extravagant process of becoming naturalized citizens.
Any comprehensive reform meriting passage into law would, at minimum, provide for some sort of penalty for immigrating here illegally—fines, payment of backtaxes, etc.—and a mandatory process through which illegals would have to get in line behind those already there waiting to become legal citizens.
The compromise legislation here provides for none of this. Instead, it grants what is tantamount to a blanket, no strings attached amnesty and reward to those who violated our nation’s laws and took advantage of the benefits of our system and society.
For this reason I would oppose the legislation, despite what appear to be many other positive aspects of it.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
The GOP Presidential Primary Debate
I view with heightened skepticism the premise and logic of holding presidential primary debates at this stage of the campaign cycle. Iowans will not be making their way to the state’s caucuses for more than seven months. The campaign has hardly had time to ripen. The issues that will define it are still forming. Most importantly, those for whom a debate is supposed to benefit—the voters trying to make an educated decision—are not, but for the most addicted junkies, paying a bit of attention yet, nor will they be for some time.
Nevertheless, it is still possible to extract some value out of one, assuming it is executed properly.
This was not the case with the Republican debate of last week and probably (I did not watch it) the Democratic one of the week before. Those who planned and executed it did a miserable job and should themselves, I am tempted to say, be executed.
The format was terrible and utterly unhelpful to the singular voter who may have been watching at home. Thirty seconds, at most, was allowed to each candidate per question. That is not nearly enough time to give a meaningful answer. The question would be asked, the candidate would begin their response, and just as they began to delve into the real substance of it Chris Matthews would obnoxiously yell "Time!" All that voters were able to hear were short sound-bites, fragmented thoughts, and gratuitous invocations of President Reagan, whose library played the gracious host and whose spirit the party is in desperate search of.
Understandably, when there are ten candidates on the stage it is practically impossible to give sufficient time to them individually (again calling into question the expositive value and point of having a debate, if it can be called that, at this point). If each and every candidate is to be given equal time then it will be equal to the lowest common denominator, where equal time for all essentially means no time for all.
No shrewdly constructed format can alter this, but one can mitigate it. Question discipline is indispensable. With the quality of the debate being the central prerogative, an abundant quantity of candidates renders imprudent an abundant quantity or diversity of questioning. Discussion concerning those issues of secondary importance have to be discarded, or at least saved for another, more logistically conducive time. That is, questions like "What would you tell a Catholic bishop who refused to serve the Eucharist to pro-choice Catholics?" and "Would it be a good thing to have Bill Clinton in the White House again?" must go unasked and unanswered at the behest of a quality discussion regarding Iraq, Iran, taxes, entitlements, immigration, etc. The former line of questioning would not be relevant even in a format where time is not an issue, let alone in one where it clearly and severely was.
If MSNBC and Politico.com had wanted to extract any value from the debate they would have focused the questioning and the discussion, sacrificing breadth and diversity for quality and substance. Instead of being made to answer a wide-range of questions—some relevant, many not—for only thirty seconds each, the candidates should have been allowed to answer a limited number of questions for at least a minute or minute and a half. Hardly sufficient time, but at least adequate to develop a cogent thought or two.
The exact opposite occurred, and it was this frivolity that rendered the debate utterly useless and a stark waste of time for all involved.
Nevertheless, it is still possible to extract some value out of one, assuming it is executed properly.
This was not the case with the Republican debate of last week and probably (I did not watch it) the Democratic one of the week before. Those who planned and executed it did a miserable job and should themselves, I am tempted to say, be executed.
The format was terrible and utterly unhelpful to the singular voter who may have been watching at home. Thirty seconds, at most, was allowed to each candidate per question. That is not nearly enough time to give a meaningful answer. The question would be asked, the candidate would begin their response, and just as they began to delve into the real substance of it Chris Matthews would obnoxiously yell "Time!" All that voters were able to hear were short sound-bites, fragmented thoughts, and gratuitous invocations of President Reagan, whose library played the gracious host and whose spirit the party is in desperate search of.
Understandably, when there are ten candidates on the stage it is practically impossible to give sufficient time to them individually (again calling into question the expositive value and point of having a debate, if it can be called that, at this point). If each and every candidate is to be given equal time then it will be equal to the lowest common denominator, where equal time for all essentially means no time for all.
No shrewdly constructed format can alter this, but one can mitigate it. Question discipline is indispensable. With the quality of the debate being the central prerogative, an abundant quantity of candidates renders imprudent an abundant quantity or diversity of questioning. Discussion concerning those issues of secondary importance have to be discarded, or at least saved for another, more logistically conducive time. That is, questions like "What would you tell a Catholic bishop who refused to serve the Eucharist to pro-choice Catholics?" and "Would it be a good thing to have Bill Clinton in the White House again?" must go unasked and unanswered at the behest of a quality discussion regarding Iraq, Iran, taxes, entitlements, immigration, etc. The former line of questioning would not be relevant even in a format where time is not an issue, let alone in one where it clearly and severely was.
If MSNBC and Politico.com had wanted to extract any value from the debate they would have focused the questioning and the discussion, sacrificing breadth and diversity for quality and substance. Instead of being made to answer a wide-range of questions—some relevant, many not—for only thirty seconds each, the candidates should have been allowed to answer a limited number of questions for at least a minute or minute and a half. Hardly sufficient time, but at least adequate to develop a cogent thought or two.
The exact opposite occurred, and it was this frivolity that rendered the debate utterly useless and a stark waste of time for all involved.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Comment Response: "Gonzales v. Carhart"
You betray your shallowness all too clearly, William. Instead of providing a counter-argument of your own, i.e. demonstrating how the Court’s jurisprudence is reconcilable with the Constitution and how its ruling in Carhart II is not, you simply claim I am "parroting neo-con talking points." That is unavoidably an intellectually substanceless hit-and-run.
But you do not even do that right. In fact you have made it further evident that labeling someone "neo-con" is a description no longer with any meaning. Neo-conservatives are a faction subscribing to a particular approach towards foreign policy. What a school of thought of that nature has to do with a Constitutional discussion you fail to explain, or even try to explain.
As Jonah Goldberg* has pointed out, George Orwell once wrote that "the word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals ‘something not desirable.’" As your comment demonstrates, the same can now be said of neo-conservatism. My piece on the Carhart decision was not vaguely related to neo-conservatism or areas where neo-conservatism would be relevant. It has become just a pejorative label to be slapped on anyone or anything distasteful to liberals.
Or maybe you simply mistakenly mixed up the stereotypical label those on the left like to apply to conservatives and their arguments. Did you mean to call me a parrot of the religious right instead?
*Goldberg, Jonah (2007, April 2). Kill This Word. National Review, LIX(5), 18-22.
But you do not even do that right. In fact you have made it further evident that labeling someone "neo-con" is a description no longer with any meaning. Neo-conservatives are a faction subscribing to a particular approach towards foreign policy. What a school of thought of that nature has to do with a Constitutional discussion you fail to explain, or even try to explain.
As Jonah Goldberg* has pointed out, George Orwell once wrote that "the word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals ‘something not desirable.’" As your comment demonstrates, the same can now be said of neo-conservatism. My piece on the Carhart decision was not vaguely related to neo-conservatism or areas where neo-conservatism would be relevant. It has become just a pejorative label to be slapped on anyone or anything distasteful to liberals.
Or maybe you simply mistakenly mixed up the stereotypical label those on the left like to apply to conservatives and their arguments. Did you mean to call me a parrot of the religious right instead?
*Goldberg, Jonah (2007, April 2). Kill This Word. National Review, LIX(5), 18-22.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Gonzales v. Carhart
I would concur in part and dissent in judgment from the Court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Justice THOMAS correctly wrote in his concurrence "that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade [citation omitted], has no basis in the Constitution." Gonzales v. Carhart, Slip at 47 (2007)(THOMAS, J., concurring). This is because the Constitution does not contemplate nor address abortion. Among the litany of powers allocated to the Congress and the federal government in Article I, §8, one mentioning abortion is nowhere to be found.
This is inescapably dispositive to the inquiry. In a system of enumerated powers, such as our own, the government cannot exercise a power that is not expressly granted it. Such is only logical. You would not enumerate specific powers to be held by an entity if you intended them to have powers other than or beyond those enumerated. The framers certainly did not, and for most of the nation’s history this was understood. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Marbury v. Madison, I Cr. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803).
As Madison explained further in the original debate over the Constitution, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Madison, Federalist 46. The Tenth Amendment simply manifests this principle in legal form, mandating that those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To quote from the attorney Charles Cooper, the Amendment was included as the last within the Bill of Rights to warn against a supposition that there were "powers in the national government that were not granted by the original document." Charles Cooper, Reserved Powers of the States, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution 371, 371 (Edwin Meese, ed., 2005).
If the Constitution does not say the national government has a power then that power is reserved by the individual states, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment controls here. The states, and only the states, have the ability to regulate or not regulate abortion.
Accordingly, there was no basis for the Court to proscribe statutory abortion prohibitions or restrictions by the states in Roe, Casey, Carhart I, etc. As Justice Thomas has explained, "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)(THOMAS, J., dissenting). Because of this, the Court has not been faithfully applying the Constitution, to borrow from Justice Scalia, it has been creating a "self-awarded sovereignty over a field where it has little proper business..." Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)(SCALIA, J., concurring).
The same principle is at play in this case. If the Court or federal government cannot prevent a state from statutorily prohibiting or restricting abortion, then neither can the Congress and the President pass and sign into law a statute regulating it in any form. The sword cuts both ways. The Constitution gives no authority to any branch or entity of the federal government to enter a sovereign province of the states.
Granted, the Court’s decision is licitly correct under the premise it was decided within, which was consideration of the Court’s own abortion precedent and jurisprudence. In accordance with Casey, the Court did rightly hold that the statute does not place an "undue burden" on a woman’s ability to receive an abortion, nor is it impermissibly vague or without an adequate exception for the life of the mother, unlike the Nebraska statute struck down by the Court in the preceding Carhart decision.
But this is a false premise. If the Constitution does not mention abortion—and does not permit the federal government to regulate or hinder the individual states’ license to regulate it—then this statute is not Constitutional, regardless of the Court’s erroneous abortion jurisprudence. If respondent’s genuinely sought the invalidation of this statute, then this would be the case to be made. (Of course they did not and would not make this assertion because a Court willing to invalidate a statute on these grounds would not hesitate to vacate Roe and every other bit of its illegitimate progeny.)
Conservatives throughout the nation are rejoicing at the Court’s decision, and in a sense, why shouldn’t they be? The merits of the statute are laudable. Few—conservative or otherwise—could object to a general proscription of a practice that virtually obliterates the line between abortion and infanticide.
But this is ultimately irrelevant. The fact that the statute is the fruits of sound moral and ethical judgment is irrelevant; it was not the federal government’s judgment to make.
For those genuinely concerned with fidelity to the text and meaning of the Constitution, there is little to celebrate in this decision. The jurisprudential house of straw the Court has constructed on abortion still stands and the text and principle of the Constitution remain no less mired in obfuscation than it did before. The Court’s decision is as equally Constitutionally specious as Roe and Casey.
Narrowly tailored to the premise the case was presented and decided in, I would concur with the Court’s holding. But that premise is divorced from the text, meaning, and effect of the Constitution the decision falsely claims to represent. Our founding charter makes no mention of abortion, leaving the questions presented by it to be decided by the respective states. Accordingly, the Congress has no authority to enact the statute considered and it is Constitutionally invalid.
Justice THOMAS correctly wrote in his concurrence "that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade [citation omitted], has no basis in the Constitution." Gonzales v. Carhart, Slip at 47 (2007)(THOMAS, J., concurring). This is because the Constitution does not contemplate nor address abortion. Among the litany of powers allocated to the Congress and the federal government in Article I, §8, one mentioning abortion is nowhere to be found.
This is inescapably dispositive to the inquiry. In a system of enumerated powers, such as our own, the government cannot exercise a power that is not expressly granted it. Such is only logical. You would not enumerate specific powers to be held by an entity if you intended them to have powers other than or beyond those enumerated. The framers certainly did not, and for most of the nation’s history this was understood. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Marbury v. Madison, I Cr. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803).
As Madison explained further in the original debate over the Constitution, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Madison, Federalist 46. The Tenth Amendment simply manifests this principle in legal form, mandating that those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To quote from the attorney Charles Cooper, the Amendment was included as the last within the Bill of Rights to warn against a supposition that there were "powers in the national government that were not granted by the original document." Charles Cooper, Reserved Powers of the States, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution 371, 371 (Edwin Meese, ed., 2005).
If the Constitution does not say the national government has a power then that power is reserved by the individual states, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment controls here. The states, and only the states, have the ability to regulate or not regulate abortion.
Accordingly, there was no basis for the Court to proscribe statutory abortion prohibitions or restrictions by the states in Roe, Casey, Carhart I, etc. As Justice Thomas has explained, "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)(THOMAS, J., dissenting). Because of this, the Court has not been faithfully applying the Constitution, to borrow from Justice Scalia, it has been creating a "self-awarded sovereignty over a field where it has little proper business..." Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)(SCALIA, J., concurring).
The same principle is at play in this case. If the Court or federal government cannot prevent a state from statutorily prohibiting or restricting abortion, then neither can the Congress and the President pass and sign into law a statute regulating it in any form. The sword cuts both ways. The Constitution gives no authority to any branch or entity of the federal government to enter a sovereign province of the states.
Granted, the Court’s decision is licitly correct under the premise it was decided within, which was consideration of the Court’s own abortion precedent and jurisprudence. In accordance with Casey, the Court did rightly hold that the statute does not place an "undue burden" on a woman’s ability to receive an abortion, nor is it impermissibly vague or without an adequate exception for the life of the mother, unlike the Nebraska statute struck down by the Court in the preceding Carhart decision.
But this is a false premise. If the Constitution does not mention abortion—and does not permit the federal government to regulate or hinder the individual states’ license to regulate it—then this statute is not Constitutional, regardless of the Court’s erroneous abortion jurisprudence. If respondent’s genuinely sought the invalidation of this statute, then this would be the case to be made. (Of course they did not and would not make this assertion because a Court willing to invalidate a statute on these grounds would not hesitate to vacate Roe and every other bit of its illegitimate progeny.)
Conservatives throughout the nation are rejoicing at the Court’s decision, and in a sense, why shouldn’t they be? The merits of the statute are laudable. Few—conservative or otherwise—could object to a general proscription of a practice that virtually obliterates the line between abortion and infanticide.
But this is ultimately irrelevant. The fact that the statute is the fruits of sound moral and ethical judgment is irrelevant; it was not the federal government’s judgment to make.
For those genuinely concerned with fidelity to the text and meaning of the Constitution, there is little to celebrate in this decision. The jurisprudential house of straw the Court has constructed on abortion still stands and the text and principle of the Constitution remain no less mired in obfuscation than it did before. The Court’s decision is as equally Constitutionally specious as Roe and Casey.
Narrowly tailored to the premise the case was presented and decided in, I would concur with the Court’s holding. But that premise is divorced from the text, meaning, and effect of the Constitution the decision falsely claims to represent. Our founding charter makes no mention of abortion, leaving the questions presented by it to be decided by the respective states. Accordingly, the Congress has no authority to enact the statute considered and it is Constitutionally invalid.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Comment Response: "On Torture"
Jason:
There have been publicly known instances where torture has elicited the intelligence requisite to preventing an act of terror. I would refer you to the Krauthammer piece I cited.
Beyond that, it would not at all be surprising if there were no publicly known instances given the classified umbrella that torture—or any other interrogation—would be performed under.
Even if there were no instance it in the past, I do not think anyone could argue that such a scenario is not a discreet possibility in this day and age. It certainly is, and we as a society should be prepared for such a contingency.
Regarding your point that people can be trained to withstand torture, America’s elite interrogators could also be trained to combat those resistance techniques. Just because someone may have been trained to withstand torture does not mean it will not ever be effective.
And if torture were not effective in some instances, then why has it been practiced for centuries by multitudinous individuals and entities? It surely is or can be effective, though it admittedly is not infallible.
There are certainly as many possible motivations to torture as there are stars in the sky, but for a moral people like us there is only one strictly-defined justification.
I agree with your point regarding the effective tool the threat of torture provides in interrogation.
I personally do not see much confusion in the definition of torture, though some of those with whom I disagree do. It is the infliction of intense, sustained, repetitive, and acute physical harm. Denying someone air conditioning on a hot day is not torture, nor is being forced to live in a tent. Torture certainly is not simply anything the detainee does not like.
Sean:
There is no way to make it right with someone who has been wrongly victimized by torture. But that point is hardly relevant. Because you cannot remedy the wrong created by falsely torturing an individual does not mean that torture should be proscribed in all instances no matter what. Instead it means that the rules governing torture must be strictly defined and strictly enforced so as to insure as much as possible that false torture does not occur. If the fact that there is no way to make it right when someone is falsely tortured dictates that torture must never be allowed, then under that same logic we can never prosecute and incarcerate an individual because there is always the chance it will turn out that they were done so wrongly.
Further, though it is certainly true that we could never make it right with an individual wrongly tortured, it is just as true that we could never make it right with the victims of an act of terror and their families and friends if we could have done more to prevent it. I am simply saying that sometimes one evil (torture) is less than another (multitudes of innocents dying). When placed in a predicament such as the one I described in my piece, we as a society have to error on the side of the lives of the innocent many, even though error is obviously a possibility in any human pursuit.
There have been publicly known instances where torture has elicited the intelligence requisite to preventing an act of terror. I would refer you to the Krauthammer piece I cited.
Beyond that, it would not at all be surprising if there were no publicly known instances given the classified umbrella that torture—or any other interrogation—would be performed under.
Even if there were no instance it in the past, I do not think anyone could argue that such a scenario is not a discreet possibility in this day and age. It certainly is, and we as a society should be prepared for such a contingency.
Regarding your point that people can be trained to withstand torture, America’s elite interrogators could also be trained to combat those resistance techniques. Just because someone may have been trained to withstand torture does not mean it will not ever be effective.
And if torture were not effective in some instances, then why has it been practiced for centuries by multitudinous individuals and entities? It surely is or can be effective, though it admittedly is not infallible.
There are certainly as many possible motivations to torture as there are stars in the sky, but for a moral people like us there is only one strictly-defined justification.
I agree with your point regarding the effective tool the threat of torture provides in interrogation.
I personally do not see much confusion in the definition of torture, though some of those with whom I disagree do. It is the infliction of intense, sustained, repetitive, and acute physical harm. Denying someone air conditioning on a hot day is not torture, nor is being forced to live in a tent. Torture certainly is not simply anything the detainee does not like.
Sean:
There is no way to make it right with someone who has been wrongly victimized by torture. But that point is hardly relevant. Because you cannot remedy the wrong created by falsely torturing an individual does not mean that torture should be proscribed in all instances no matter what. Instead it means that the rules governing torture must be strictly defined and strictly enforced so as to insure as much as possible that false torture does not occur. If the fact that there is no way to make it right when someone is falsely tortured dictates that torture must never be allowed, then under that same logic we can never prosecute and incarcerate an individual because there is always the chance it will turn out that they were done so wrongly.
Further, though it is certainly true that we could never make it right with an individual wrongly tortured, it is just as true that we could never make it right with the victims of an act of terror and their families and friends if we could have done more to prevent it. I am simply saying that sometimes one evil (torture) is less than another (multitudes of innocents dying). When placed in a predicament such as the one I described in my piece, we as a society have to error on the side of the lives of the innocent many, even though error is obviously a possibility in any human pursuit.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Barack Obama, Inspiration?
In his recent remarks of a controversial nature regarding the Clintons, Hollywood mogul David Geffen commented—somewhere in between all the anti-Clinton vituperation—that Sen. Barack Obama "is inspirational."
How so? What fundamental principles, innovative ideas, or wise doctrines does the Senator possess and promote that make him inspirational? What matter of substance would convince one that, unlike Sen. Clinton, he could unite the country, which Mr. Geffen implied? For that matter, what justifies the infatuation such a significant portion of the Democratic base has with him?
Is it his likeable nature only? His affability? His comfortable, skilled public speaking abilities? Is this alone enough to inspire? Is this why he and his supporters believe he should be the next President of the United States?
Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, two of our most inspirational presidents of the previous century, were also affable characters highly skilled and comfortable with public communication. But this alone is not why they inspired, and continue to inspire. There was so much more to them. President Roosevelt led a nation forced into war and inspired it to conquer its fears, confront it enemies, and, in "its righteous might", defeat them. President Reagan took a nation paralyzed by malaise and inspired it to believe in itself and in its greatness once again and to defeat an "evil empire" previous presidents had been too weak and unwilling to confront.
To be frank, Senator Obama does not have anything on these men. I personally like Senator Obama, and appreciate the generally non-partisan tone of his discourse, but when it comes to his credentials to be our president the cupboard is bare. That he is an attractive, likeable candidate makes him little more competent to be president of this nation—a nation at war—than Brad Pitt, who is also attractive and likeable (or at least he was before his decree nisi with Jennifer Aniston). He may make us feel warm inside, but he certainly is not an inspiration, nor ready to be president of the greatest nation in the history of man.
The senator may very well make a competent and effective president some day. He certainly has potential. But now is not his time. He has to have some experience, something of substance to offer the electorate that demonstrates that he can hold the highest—and in terms of importance and gravity, the heaviest—office in the land.
He has demonstrated no such modicum of competence yet, and if we were to elect him as our president next year only for such superficial reasons as his charm and likability—which alone are not enough to inspire—we would be a nation of shallow character. We would be no less shallow than the stereotypical teenager who dates the hot, busty, blonde cheerleader whose attributes penetrate only skin deep.
There simply is not anything to the senator that inspires or indicates he is ready for the presidency. Not now at least.
How so? What fundamental principles, innovative ideas, or wise doctrines does the Senator possess and promote that make him inspirational? What matter of substance would convince one that, unlike Sen. Clinton, he could unite the country, which Mr. Geffen implied? For that matter, what justifies the infatuation such a significant portion of the Democratic base has with him?
Is it his likeable nature only? His affability? His comfortable, skilled public speaking abilities? Is this alone enough to inspire? Is this why he and his supporters believe he should be the next President of the United States?
Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, two of our most inspirational presidents of the previous century, were also affable characters highly skilled and comfortable with public communication. But this alone is not why they inspired, and continue to inspire. There was so much more to them. President Roosevelt led a nation forced into war and inspired it to conquer its fears, confront it enemies, and, in "its righteous might", defeat them. President Reagan took a nation paralyzed by malaise and inspired it to believe in itself and in its greatness once again and to defeat an "evil empire" previous presidents had been too weak and unwilling to confront.
To be frank, Senator Obama does not have anything on these men. I personally like Senator Obama, and appreciate the generally non-partisan tone of his discourse, but when it comes to his credentials to be our president the cupboard is bare. That he is an attractive, likeable candidate makes him little more competent to be president of this nation—a nation at war—than Brad Pitt, who is also attractive and likeable (or at least he was before his decree nisi with Jennifer Aniston). He may make us feel warm inside, but he certainly is not an inspiration, nor ready to be president of the greatest nation in the history of man.
The senator may very well make a competent and effective president some day. He certainly has potential. But now is not his time. He has to have some experience, something of substance to offer the electorate that demonstrates that he can hold the highest—and in terms of importance and gravity, the heaviest—office in the land.
He has demonstrated no such modicum of competence yet, and if we were to elect him as our president next year only for such superficial reasons as his charm and likability—which alone are not enough to inspire—we would be a nation of shallow character. We would be no less shallow than the stereotypical teenager who dates the hot, busty, blonde cheerleader whose attributes penetrate only skin deep.
There simply is not anything to the senator that inspires or indicates he is ready for the presidency. Not now at least.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
On Torture
Torture is one of those issues whose morality is easily decided in the philosophical and the abstract. It is so cruel, so barbaric, so inhuman, and so overly repugnant to the senses that it cannot possibly be justified or condoned. No democratic nation that claims to respect and protect the sanctity of human life could sanction it and still deserve the name. It is a brutal and abominable relic of civilized man’s violent past, and it should remain there. We have long since evolved and (hopefully) left the institutions of such a nature long behind. This much we can all be certain of.
But sometimes the cold realities of the world we live in today pierce clear and indisputable holes through even those most perfect absolutes of the philosophical and the abstract. In such circumstances the crystal clear sky we create in our reasoned rumination quickly becomes beset by little gray clouds produced by the ubiquitous problems inherent within human civilization. What was decided with certainty in our classrooms, lecture halls, parlors, dining rooms, institutions of government, books, and editorial pages is no longer so.
Torture is such an issue. Western civilization as a whole, but the United States specifically and most prominently, faces an existential threat from Extremist Islamic terrorism. This terrorism seeks to kill as many innocent lives as possible, to inflict as much physical destruction as possible, and to incubate maximum suffering. Its barbaric intents and effects are of the same nature as torture, and in fact it is nothing more than torture on a much larger and more horrific scale. That those who endeavor to perpetrate it have no regard for their own life in the pursuit, and seem to glorify their own death, presents a unique and daunting challenge to any society who must protect themselves from it.
It is this context and reality that serves as a thick, gray cloud challenging and, in my view, refuting the philosophical and abstract certainties we have reached as a society regarding torture.
Do not misunderstand me. I by no means assert that torture is generally an acceptable form of interrogation. With most of those unlawful illegal combatants we capture on the battlefield and in the preponderance of situations torture is not and should not be an option. Period. But to create a blanket, absolute ban on torture no matter the circumstances and the implications could ultimately result in the loss of innocent life, possibly on a massive scale. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, "However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information)."1
These rare instances would entail an imminent atrocity. We have all heard the hypothetical, or some variation of it. A weapon of mass destruction has been planted in a major American city and in a short period of time it will be detonated. A terrorist with knowledge of the bomb—where it will be detonated, who will detonate it, when it will be detonated—is incarcerated at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is not talking, and has no intention of doing so. None of the legal, acceptable, and humane interrogation techniques are working, nor will work. The weapon could be detonated at any minute. Whole streets stand in impending danger of being destroyed. Millions of dollars stand to be lost. Worst of all, thousands of innocent people, simply going about in the routine of their daily lives, are likely to be killed or maimed. Their deaths will have a devastating effect on the secondary victims of the attack as well, the friends and family members of those lost.
You are responsible for interrogating the incarcerated terrorist who possesses the information that can prevent all of this. What do you do?
In circumstances such as these, can we truly say, in good conscience, that torture is always impermissible? Does this not confirm that, though it is morally impermissible most of the time, it is not so all of the time. If that interrogator can ascertain needed life-saving intelligence from the obstinate terrorist through torture, should he not do so? Can it possibly be morally repugnant to torture a terrorist with knowledge when doing so can help save innocent human life?
I cannot hold that it is. And I think that most people, confronted with this same scenario, would so concur. Only one with a naive and misbegotten moral and ethical code could find that torturing a terrorist—actively involved in plots to reap mass destruction upon innocent peoples—to save innocent life is morally wrong. In such a situation, to not do everything possible to save those lives would be the moral wrong, not torture.
The true question society must debate and resolve is not whether torture is permissible in these rarest of circumstances, but under which circumstances it is. Given the obviously cruel nature of it—or as Mr. Krauthammer has termed it, "the monstrous evil that is any form of torture"—and its oppressively heavy moral implications, those circumstances must be strictly defined and strictly enforced.
The "monstrous evil" that torture represents logically mandates that it be employed only in the most dire and impending circumstances. It must be a last resort, used only after all other available means have been attempted and have failed. To be justified, torture must be the only possible method through which an impending act of terror may be thwarted through the collection of the requisite intelligence. Essentially, there has to be a ticking time bomb, not one with a short fuse; and all other means must have been tried. Torture is only to be the last, desperate attempt.
Just as important in deciding which circumstances torture is to be prescribed under is specifying who in the chain of command has the ultimate authority to make that decision. It should not be those directly responsible for the interrogation. If given this discretion, there would be no real opportunity for oversight over the process by America’s elected officials, those who are directly accountable to the American people. Accordingly, the very top of the chain of American government—the President of the United States—should be the lone American official capable of making such a decision. It might also be wise to craft a provision which would mandate that a congressional committee—likely the Intelligence committee—be apprised in a classified basis of the situation, either prior to authorization or post facto.
No doubt most presidents and public officials would likely be uncomfortable with such a singular and oppressively solemn responsibility. But, quoting from Mr. Krauthammer once more, these officials are "responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, [and] have the obligation to tolerate their own sleepless nights by doing what is necessary—and only what is necessary, nothing more—to get information that could prevent mass murder." Besides, I would assume that a president would rather endure a sleepless night over having to authorize torture than endure one following a terrorist act which may have been prevented through torture.
In cases where the bomb is ticking to the extent that there is no time for an appeal to the president, I would adopt Krauthammer’s provision that an interrogator be provided the authority to act on their own with a mandatory post facto review by an independent body to follow within the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours. Granted, with the specter of a possible review and sanction looming over them an interrogator may decline to act in an attempt to cover themselves from any possible prosecution in the future, even where torture is self-evidently justified and required. This prospect however, is outweighed by the protection against abuse provided by the post facto review.
Those who would actually be charged with executing the torture must be highly trained and thoroughly screened and vetted. It is an absolute necessity that they be the elite of the elite in American intelligence. They have to be competent to handle the obvious stress and pressure of torturing an individual. They must be of the soundest mind.
As a means of review, there should be more than one of the qualified interrogators present.
Any American intelligence officer who does torture an individual without authorization must be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. This might be the most important provision we can craft on the issue. There are few crimes greater and more heinous than torture, and the sanction for its violation should be commensurate to that fact. Without such a penalty, we would forfeit many of the benefits and protections of the provisions I outlined above.
Those who would still refuse to condone torture under any circumstance, despite all of the above, are certainly admirable in their intent. He who refuses to harm another human being no matter the circumstance or effect is certainly a saint among us. But this does not change the fact that such a stance is grossly naive and self-paralyzing if adopted by a besieged society as a whole. Sometimes torture is the lesser of two evils. If we decline to defend ourselves, and adopt the necessary means in defending ourselves, we inexorably decline to protect innocent life. Quoting from Mr. Krauthammer one last time, "One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend."
Moreover, I do not see how one can assert that we should always be compelled to treat an individual humanely when doing so will allow that individual and his ilk to perpetrate the most inhumane, barbaric acts on scores of innocent individuals. It would be too tragically ironic if an act of senseless murder was allowed to be carried out on a mass scale because we were unwilling to adopt some unusually terrible measures with one or a couple of the perpetrators to prevent it. If the choice is forced upon us how can we as a society stand idle and allow scores of innocents to fall prey to unspeakable barbarities instead of enacting some barbaric measure with individuals who are not at all innocent to prevent it? In such circumstances, I think it is clear what we must do, as odious as it may be.
We all wish that the bitter realities of our world would never put us in this position. But we do not live in such a world. In this age of terrorism, torture may be a necessary evil to be utilized—in the most limited, strictly defined and enforced circumstances possible—to save the lives of countless innocents. Sometimes in the most severe of instances the act of torture is the most moral thing to do; when, that is, the only other option is to remain idle as an act of bloody savagery is perpetrated.
Our society’s absolute objection to rendition in all circumstances in the philosophical and abstract—noble as it is—does not stand up to the occasional realities of the world we inhabit.
---------
1. Charles Krauthammer, The Truth about Torture, The Weekly Standard, December 5, 2005, at 21.
But sometimes the cold realities of the world we live in today pierce clear and indisputable holes through even those most perfect absolutes of the philosophical and the abstract. In such circumstances the crystal clear sky we create in our reasoned rumination quickly becomes beset by little gray clouds produced by the ubiquitous problems inherent within human civilization. What was decided with certainty in our classrooms, lecture halls, parlors, dining rooms, institutions of government, books, and editorial pages is no longer so.
Torture is such an issue. Western civilization as a whole, but the United States specifically and most prominently, faces an existential threat from Extremist Islamic terrorism. This terrorism seeks to kill as many innocent lives as possible, to inflict as much physical destruction as possible, and to incubate maximum suffering. Its barbaric intents and effects are of the same nature as torture, and in fact it is nothing more than torture on a much larger and more horrific scale. That those who endeavor to perpetrate it have no regard for their own life in the pursuit, and seem to glorify their own death, presents a unique and daunting challenge to any society who must protect themselves from it.
It is this context and reality that serves as a thick, gray cloud challenging and, in my view, refuting the philosophical and abstract certainties we have reached as a society regarding torture.
Do not misunderstand me. I by no means assert that torture is generally an acceptable form of interrogation. With most of those unlawful illegal combatants we capture on the battlefield and in the preponderance of situations torture is not and should not be an option. Period. But to create a blanket, absolute ban on torture no matter the circumstances and the implications could ultimately result in the loss of innocent life, possibly on a massive scale. As the columnist Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, "However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which, by any rational moral calculus, torture not only would be permissible but would be required (to acquire life-saving information)."1
These rare instances would entail an imminent atrocity. We have all heard the hypothetical, or some variation of it. A weapon of mass destruction has been planted in a major American city and in a short period of time it will be detonated. A terrorist with knowledge of the bomb—where it will be detonated, who will detonate it, when it will be detonated—is incarcerated at the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is not talking, and has no intention of doing so. None of the legal, acceptable, and humane interrogation techniques are working, nor will work. The weapon could be detonated at any minute. Whole streets stand in impending danger of being destroyed. Millions of dollars stand to be lost. Worst of all, thousands of innocent people, simply going about in the routine of their daily lives, are likely to be killed or maimed. Their deaths will have a devastating effect on the secondary victims of the attack as well, the friends and family members of those lost.
You are responsible for interrogating the incarcerated terrorist who possesses the information that can prevent all of this. What do you do?
In circumstances such as these, can we truly say, in good conscience, that torture is always impermissible? Does this not confirm that, though it is morally impermissible most of the time, it is not so all of the time. If that interrogator can ascertain needed life-saving intelligence from the obstinate terrorist through torture, should he not do so? Can it possibly be morally repugnant to torture a terrorist with knowledge when doing so can help save innocent human life?
I cannot hold that it is. And I think that most people, confronted with this same scenario, would so concur. Only one with a naive and misbegotten moral and ethical code could find that torturing a terrorist—actively involved in plots to reap mass destruction upon innocent peoples—to save innocent life is morally wrong. In such a situation, to not do everything possible to save those lives would be the moral wrong, not torture.
The true question society must debate and resolve is not whether torture is permissible in these rarest of circumstances, but under which circumstances it is. Given the obviously cruel nature of it—or as Mr. Krauthammer has termed it, "the monstrous evil that is any form of torture"—and its oppressively heavy moral implications, those circumstances must be strictly defined and strictly enforced.
The "monstrous evil" that torture represents logically mandates that it be employed only in the most dire and impending circumstances. It must be a last resort, used only after all other available means have been attempted and have failed. To be justified, torture must be the only possible method through which an impending act of terror may be thwarted through the collection of the requisite intelligence. Essentially, there has to be a ticking time bomb, not one with a short fuse; and all other means must have been tried. Torture is only to be the last, desperate attempt.
Just as important in deciding which circumstances torture is to be prescribed under is specifying who in the chain of command has the ultimate authority to make that decision. It should not be those directly responsible for the interrogation. If given this discretion, there would be no real opportunity for oversight over the process by America’s elected officials, those who are directly accountable to the American people. Accordingly, the very top of the chain of American government—the President of the United States—should be the lone American official capable of making such a decision. It might also be wise to craft a provision which would mandate that a congressional committee—likely the Intelligence committee—be apprised in a classified basis of the situation, either prior to authorization or post facto.
No doubt most presidents and public officials would likely be uncomfortable with such a singular and oppressively solemn responsibility. But, quoting from Mr. Krauthammer once more, these officials are "responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, [and] have the obligation to tolerate their own sleepless nights by doing what is necessary—and only what is necessary, nothing more—to get information that could prevent mass murder." Besides, I would assume that a president would rather endure a sleepless night over having to authorize torture than endure one following a terrorist act which may have been prevented through torture.
In cases where the bomb is ticking to the extent that there is no time for an appeal to the president, I would adopt Krauthammer’s provision that an interrogator be provided the authority to act on their own with a mandatory post facto review by an independent body to follow within the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours. Granted, with the specter of a possible review and sanction looming over them an interrogator may decline to act in an attempt to cover themselves from any possible prosecution in the future, even where torture is self-evidently justified and required. This prospect however, is outweighed by the protection against abuse provided by the post facto review.
Those who would actually be charged with executing the torture must be highly trained and thoroughly screened and vetted. It is an absolute necessity that they be the elite of the elite in American intelligence. They have to be competent to handle the obvious stress and pressure of torturing an individual. They must be of the soundest mind.
As a means of review, there should be more than one of the qualified interrogators present.
Any American intelligence officer who does torture an individual without authorization must be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. This might be the most important provision we can craft on the issue. There are few crimes greater and more heinous than torture, and the sanction for its violation should be commensurate to that fact. Without such a penalty, we would forfeit many of the benefits and protections of the provisions I outlined above.
**********
All of this is certainly an unpleasant conversation to have and a rather obnoxious question to decide. And some may seek to avoid it by simply clinging to the notion that torture is ineffective anyway. This would obviously be an easy resolution to the moral crisis the topic presents, but it does not seem to be true. There are documented incidents of torture actually being effective.
Those who would still refuse to condone torture under any circumstance, despite all of the above, are certainly admirable in their intent. He who refuses to harm another human being no matter the circumstance or effect is certainly a saint among us. But this does not change the fact that such a stance is grossly naive and self-paralyzing if adopted by a besieged society as a whole. Sometimes torture is the lesser of two evils. If we decline to defend ourselves, and adopt the necessary means in defending ourselves, we inexorably decline to protect innocent life. Quoting from Mr. Krauthammer one last time, "One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend."
Moreover, I do not see how one can assert that we should always be compelled to treat an individual humanely when doing so will allow that individual and his ilk to perpetrate the most inhumane, barbaric acts on scores of innocent individuals. It would be too tragically ironic if an act of senseless murder was allowed to be carried out on a mass scale because we were unwilling to adopt some unusually terrible measures with one or a couple of the perpetrators to prevent it. If the choice is forced upon us how can we as a society stand idle and allow scores of innocents to fall prey to unspeakable barbarities instead of enacting some barbaric measure with individuals who are not at all innocent to prevent it? In such circumstances, I think it is clear what we must do, as odious as it may be.
We all wish that the bitter realities of our world would never put us in this position. But we do not live in such a world. In this age of terrorism, torture may be a necessary evil to be utilized—in the most limited, strictly defined and enforced circumstances possible—to save the lives of countless innocents. Sometimes in the most severe of instances the act of torture is the most moral thing to do; when, that is, the only other option is to remain idle as an act of bloody savagery is perpetrated.
Our society’s absolute objection to rendition in all circumstances in the philosophical and abstract—noble as it is—does not stand up to the occasional realities of the world we inhabit.
---------
1. Charles Krauthammer, The Truth about Torture, The Weekly Standard, December 5, 2005, at 21.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Attorneygate & the 'What Would Rudy Do?' Factor
I am a distinct admirer of President Bush. He is a leader by any accurate and relevant definition of the term. He has conviction and moral clarity and is willing to do the right thing and pursue the nation’s long-term interest even when doing so comes at a steep political cost to himself, as has been demonstrated by his dogged perseverence in Iraq. That feature is too rare among our political leaders today, and I sincerely hope and expect history to judge him kindly for it.
But I must admit that his largely passive behavior in this current ”scandal” over the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys is disheartening. The behavior of those Congressional Democrats pursuing it is of a purely political and substanceless nature, and the president should have asserted as much when this furor first erupted. He should have made it clear that he had every right to fire the attorneys under the Constitution, as did President Clinton when he fired all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his presidency, and that neither he nor his administration would be a party to the Democrats’ hackish political games.
But he didn’t, and his failure to do so has, as Fred Barnes points out, “encouraged his Democratic foes to be even more belligerent and discouraged his Republican allies.”
The reason I even discuss this is that I think this situation illuminates a large reason for Mayor Giuliani’s lead in the GOP primary polls. Given his record in Gotham–and his temperament, personality, and leadership style–a President Giuliani would have stood up for himself and his administration and he would have called out the Democrats and their behavior for what it was.
This is what Republicans want, a leader who will stand up for himself and his administration. We want someone who won’t suffer such political hackery in silence. A President Giuliani wouldn’t, and that is why he is receiving as much support as he is at this point.
But I must admit that his largely passive behavior in this current ”scandal” over the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys is disheartening. The behavior of those Congressional Democrats pursuing it is of a purely political and substanceless nature, and the president should have asserted as much when this furor first erupted. He should have made it clear that he had every right to fire the attorneys under the Constitution, as did President Clinton when he fired all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his presidency, and that neither he nor his administration would be a party to the Democrats’ hackish political games.
But he didn’t, and his failure to do so has, as Fred Barnes points out, “encouraged his Democratic foes to be even more belligerent and discouraged his Republican allies.”
The reason I even discuss this is that I think this situation illuminates a large reason for Mayor Giuliani’s lead in the GOP primary polls. Given his record in Gotham–and his temperament, personality, and leadership style–a President Giuliani would have stood up for himself and his administration and he would have called out the Democrats and their behavior for what it was.
This is what Republicans want, a leader who will stand up for himself and his administration. We want someone who won’t suffer such political hackery in silence. A President Giuliani wouldn’t, and that is why he is receiving as much support as he is at this point.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Iraq War Anniversary
As we mark the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War this week, the nation honors those brave Americans who have given what Lincoln called "the last full measure of devotion" there. Our fallen warriors were and always will be American heroes, and their lives and their sacrifices will not soon be forgotten. Though the world is a little less bright without them, it is also a little more free and secure because of their efforts.
But as much as this week is a time to reflect upon what we have done in Iraq and what we have lost, it is also a time to contemplate where we are and where we plan on going. Most of all, it is a time for the country to decide how we shall best honor those who have fought and died in the desert sands of Iraq, and how we will honor those who continue to fight and die today.
It is beyond debate that for months Iraq has been a chaotic mess, mired in a seemingly endless cycle of sectarian strife and bloodshed, with Sunni killing Shia and Shia killing Sunni. I do not deny that in a sizeable degree the circumstances which facilitated this perpetual state of crisis were the results of the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of American strategy on the ground.
Some now, in consideration of these failures and of the loss of life suffered there, conclude that we must take our leave from Iraq, whether it be precipitously, gradually, or in accordance with a fixed timetable. America’s venture in Iraq has been a case of one blunder followed by another, goes this rationale, and the costs of our presence there are no longer–or never were–justified.
I respect this conclusion, and recognize the sincerity and noble intentions of those who assert it; but I cannot and do not share it. Past failure and adversity have never been a reason to quit, least of all to Americans. Failure and the adversity it presents is instead the point at which we must dust ourselves off, adapt, and re-dedicate ourselves. I apply this principle to our mission in Iraq, for if it is not appropriate here then it is not appropriate anywhere.
Even with all of his previous mismanagement and failures in Iraq, the president at the very least understands this. Our strategy in Iraq has been adapted and altered, and the initial returns are promising. Violence within Baghdad is decreasing, civil life and the economy are beginning to pick up, and limited but existential political progress is being made.
In full recognition of this we must stay in Iraq until our original objective of seeing the nation of Iraq achieve a stable, representative, vibrant, and self-sustaining republic is realized.
Every single American wants to bring home our men and women from Iraq yesterday. But all actions have consequences, and to retreat from Iraq would incur upon our nation consequences far worse than staying there would.
American withdrawal would lead to a rapid descent into a sectarian war in Iraq of a lethality we have not previously witnessed. The ramifications of such a cruel tempest would be as destructive and toxic as they are predictable. Massive sectarian carnage would immediately ensue, destabilizing amounts of Sunni refugees would flee for their lives into neighboring Sunni nations, and an anarchic vacuum would cause Iraq to rapidly devolve into the world’s newest terrorist base and safe haven, from which terrorist operations could be waged in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and, as we all witnessed on September 11, 2001, the United States of America.
I want America to leave Iraq as much as the most strident peace protester, but the consequences of such an exodus would simply be too catastrophic to condone.
If for nothing else, we cannot retreat from Iraq because fulfilling our mission in Iraq is the best way to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the pursuance of it. As cruelly and unbearably tragic as each of their deaths are, it would be an even greater tragedy if they were to have died in vain for a mission we simply abandoned. Let us never realize such a day.
On this fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, in full remembrance and appreciation for our slain heroes, "It is for us the living," to quote from Lincoln once more, "to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they...have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be...dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall have not died in vain." If for none other, let this be the reason we dedicate ourselves to victory in Iraq.
But as much as this week is a time to reflect upon what we have done in Iraq and what we have lost, it is also a time to contemplate where we are and where we plan on going. Most of all, it is a time for the country to decide how we shall best honor those who have fought and died in the desert sands of Iraq, and how we will honor those who continue to fight and die today.
It is beyond debate that for months Iraq has been a chaotic mess, mired in a seemingly endless cycle of sectarian strife and bloodshed, with Sunni killing Shia and Shia killing Sunni. I do not deny that in a sizeable degree the circumstances which facilitated this perpetual state of crisis were the results of the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of American strategy on the ground.
Some now, in consideration of these failures and of the loss of life suffered there, conclude that we must take our leave from Iraq, whether it be precipitously, gradually, or in accordance with a fixed timetable. America’s venture in Iraq has been a case of one blunder followed by another, goes this rationale, and the costs of our presence there are no longer–or never were–justified.
I respect this conclusion, and recognize the sincerity and noble intentions of those who assert it; but I cannot and do not share it. Past failure and adversity have never been a reason to quit, least of all to Americans. Failure and the adversity it presents is instead the point at which we must dust ourselves off, adapt, and re-dedicate ourselves. I apply this principle to our mission in Iraq, for if it is not appropriate here then it is not appropriate anywhere.
Even with all of his previous mismanagement and failures in Iraq, the president at the very least understands this. Our strategy in Iraq has been adapted and altered, and the initial returns are promising. Violence within Baghdad is decreasing, civil life and the economy are beginning to pick up, and limited but existential political progress is being made.
In full recognition of this we must stay in Iraq until our original objective of seeing the nation of Iraq achieve a stable, representative, vibrant, and self-sustaining republic is realized.
Every single American wants to bring home our men and women from Iraq yesterday. But all actions have consequences, and to retreat from Iraq would incur upon our nation consequences far worse than staying there would.
American withdrawal would lead to a rapid descent into a sectarian war in Iraq of a lethality we have not previously witnessed. The ramifications of such a cruel tempest would be as destructive and toxic as they are predictable. Massive sectarian carnage would immediately ensue, destabilizing amounts of Sunni refugees would flee for their lives into neighboring Sunni nations, and an anarchic vacuum would cause Iraq to rapidly devolve into the world’s newest terrorist base and safe haven, from which terrorist operations could be waged in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and, as we all witnessed on September 11, 2001, the United States of America.
I want America to leave Iraq as much as the most strident peace protester, but the consequences of such an exodus would simply be too catastrophic to condone.
If for nothing else, we cannot retreat from Iraq because fulfilling our mission in Iraq is the best way to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the pursuance of it. As cruelly and unbearably tragic as each of their deaths are, it would be an even greater tragedy if they were to have died in vain for a mission we simply abandoned. Let us never realize such a day.
On this fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, in full remembrance and appreciation for our slain heroes, "It is for us the living," to quote from Lincoln once more, "to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they...have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be...dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall have not died in vain." If for none other, let this be the reason we dedicate ourselves to victory in Iraq.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
National Primary Polls
Every day now a national poll of the ‘08 presidential primaries is released for both parties. They are copiously scrutinized, and those within the political commentariat commonly utilize them as bellwethers of the state of the race in both parties.
But I would contend that the probative value and relevance of this data is, at best, minimal, if not nil (never mind the rank absurdity of putting any weight in polling of a presidential campaign still in its nascent stages). A national poll of primary voters is incommensurate to accurately reflecting the race because it is not tailored to the peculiarities of the presidential primary system. Witness the ‘04 Democrat presidential primary, where Sen. Joe Lieberman always topped national polls of Democrat primary voters yet never came close to winning the nomination. When the actual voting occurred in each state he finished a consistent third to fifth place.
The explanation for this is simple. There is no national primary. Each individual state conducts their own primary (or caucus) in much the same way that each state holds an individual presidential contest in the general election.
The difference is that unlike in the general presidential election the individual primary contests do not all occur on the same day. They are held—sometimes individually and apart from the other states, sometimes in a cluster of states held the same day—over weeks and months.
This is crucial. Because momentum plays such a deciding factor in American politics, he (or she) who wins the early contests—specifically Iowa and New Hampshire–generates a wave for themselves which more often than not carries them onto victories in subsequent primaries. This in turn carries them to further victories in the latest of the primaries and eventually into winning the nomination.
It is a rule of thumb in American politics that voters go with a winner, and there is no better way to demonstrate that you are a winner than to actually win.
Accordingly, the polling data from the early primary states serves as a much sounder base from which to make a judgment on the state of a primary campaign. One candidate with national recognition may top the crowd in national surveys, but that will count for little if he does not hold a similar position in Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which possess electorates that do not reflect the national electorate.
This is not to say there have never been exceptions to this general rule. In the ‘76 GOP primary, incumbent President Gerald Ford swept the balance of the early primaries, only to have Ronald Reagan make a late resurgence that would leave the nomination in the air into the second ballot of the party’s convention late that summer. But even here, President Ford eventually did secure the nomination on the strength of his early primary successes, which Reagan came close to but never actually succeeded in overcoming. This ostensible exception is in actuality another example and more evidence of the rule.
It is inescapable that the peculiar nature of the presidential primary system in America inevitably and inalterably frustrates any effort to discern the state of a primary campaign through national polling data. Survey numbers from the early states are the most accurate and most viable agency through which to make this judgment. If you want me to tell you who the frontrunner is the for the nomination I will need you to tell me the polling data from Iowa and New Hampshire, not the national numbers.
But I would contend that the probative value and relevance of this data is, at best, minimal, if not nil (never mind the rank absurdity of putting any weight in polling of a presidential campaign still in its nascent stages). A national poll of primary voters is incommensurate to accurately reflecting the race because it is not tailored to the peculiarities of the presidential primary system. Witness the ‘04 Democrat presidential primary, where Sen. Joe Lieberman always topped national polls of Democrat primary voters yet never came close to winning the nomination. When the actual voting occurred in each state he finished a consistent third to fifth place.
The explanation for this is simple. There is no national primary. Each individual state conducts their own primary (or caucus) in much the same way that each state holds an individual presidential contest in the general election.
The difference is that unlike in the general presidential election the individual primary contests do not all occur on the same day. They are held—sometimes individually and apart from the other states, sometimes in a cluster of states held the same day—over weeks and months.
This is crucial. Because momentum plays such a deciding factor in American politics, he (or she) who wins the early contests—specifically Iowa and New Hampshire–generates a wave for themselves which more often than not carries them onto victories in subsequent primaries. This in turn carries them to further victories in the latest of the primaries and eventually into winning the nomination.
It is a rule of thumb in American politics that voters go with a winner, and there is no better way to demonstrate that you are a winner than to actually win.
Accordingly, the polling data from the early primary states serves as a much sounder base from which to make a judgment on the state of a primary campaign. One candidate with national recognition may top the crowd in national surveys, but that will count for little if he does not hold a similar position in Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which possess electorates that do not reflect the national electorate.
This is not to say there have never been exceptions to this general rule. In the ‘76 GOP primary, incumbent President Gerald Ford swept the balance of the early primaries, only to have Ronald Reagan make a late resurgence that would leave the nomination in the air into the second ballot of the party’s convention late that summer. But even here, President Ford eventually did secure the nomination on the strength of his early primary successes, which Reagan came close to but never actually succeeded in overcoming. This ostensible exception is in actuality another example and more evidence of the rule.
It is inescapable that the peculiar nature of the presidential primary system in America inevitably and inalterably frustrates any effort to discern the state of a primary campaign through national polling data. Survey numbers from the early states are the most accurate and most viable agency through which to make this judgment. If you want me to tell you who the frontrunner is the for the nomination I will need you to tell me the polling data from Iowa and New Hampshire, not the national numbers.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Letter to the Editor, THE MAST, for the PLU GOP
When American soldiers are fighting and dying on foreign battlefields thousands of miles away their political leaders in Congress have one of two choices. They must either do everything they can to support the troops and help them accomplish their mission or they must act within their appropriation powers to bring them home. If they lack the will or the courage to do either then at the very least they ought to abstain from any action that could hurt or undermine our men and women in combat.
This Congress conspicuously refuses to follow any of these choices. Majorities in both houses no longer support our mission in Iraq, especially the president’s new escalation strategy, and the preponderance of their rhetoric holds that the United States has no chance of success in Iraq and ought to withdraw "in short order,"as Senator Jim Webb put it.
But instead of enacting the logical action that would extend from this rhetoric, Congress seems intent on taking the politically easy way out by adopting non-binding resolutions which have the effect of expressing disapproval without actually doing anything about it. This is political cowardice in its worst form. As Congressman Dennis Kucinich has correctly opined, "It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it. If you oppose the war, then don’t vote to fund it."
Our troops deserve better than this duplicity. Congress has a clear and unequivocal obligation to make the choice between supporting our troops and their mission or cutting off funding for operations in Iraq and bringing them home. Non-binding resolutions passed in opposition to our mission in Iraq will accomplish little besides sending the message to our troops that their political leaders do not support the mission they are being asked to risk their lives for and that it is doomed to fail. The Congress should not be in the business of cutting our men and women off at the knees at a time when they need the support of their political leaders the most.
This Congress conspicuously refuses to follow any of these choices. Majorities in both houses no longer support our mission in Iraq, especially the president’s new escalation strategy, and the preponderance of their rhetoric holds that the United States has no chance of success in Iraq and ought to withdraw "in short order,"as Senator Jim Webb put it.
But instead of enacting the logical action that would extend from this rhetoric, Congress seems intent on taking the politically easy way out by adopting non-binding resolutions which have the effect of expressing disapproval without actually doing anything about it. This is political cowardice in its worst form. As Congressman Dennis Kucinich has correctly opined, "It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it. If you oppose the war, then don’t vote to fund it."
Our troops deserve better than this duplicity. Congress has a clear and unequivocal obligation to make the choice between supporting our troops and their mission or cutting off funding for operations in Iraq and bringing them home. Non-binding resolutions passed in opposition to our mission in Iraq will accomplish little besides sending the message to our troops that their political leaders do not support the mission they are being asked to risk their lives for and that it is doomed to fail. The Congress should not be in the business of cutting our men and women off at the knees at a time when they need the support of their political leaders the most.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Democratic Congress & Iraq
When you see an action being committed that strikes you as inherently wrong and misguided, what is your obligation to act in response to it? What if you’re in a position to prevent or thwart it? Is it your obligation to act within your means to do so?
Congressional Democrats face this dilemma. With the lone exception of Senator Lieberman, they uniformly oppose the president’s adjusted strategy in Iraq and it is generally within their power to not only thwart its implementation but to even end our involvement in Iraq altogether.(1) Given this position, what are they to do? What are they compelled to do?
If their intent is to serve the nation’s interest and it is their conviction that sending more troops into Baghdad–and remaining in Iraq altogether–contradicts the national interest than they must act to prevent the surge and bring our forces home, or propose an alternative strategy. Courage and faithfulness to conviction obligates them to. After all, if you judge something to be wrong should you not act within your means to end it or at least prevent its propagation?
Well, apparently not. Democrats fulminate that not only is sending twenty-thousand more troops to Baghdad wrong, but that success in Iraq is no longer possible and that we ought to "redeploy" our forces precipitously. Logically, that means they would exercise their legislative powers to not only prevent our presence in Iraq from increasing, but to end it completely. As Rep. Dennis Kucinich has declared, "It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it. If you oppose the war, then don’t vote to fund it."
But in actuality the Democrats’ rhetoric does not extend beyond that; mere rhetoric. Instead of backing their words with action, non-binding resolutions have been introduced in both houses of Congress expressing their respective chambers’ opposition. That is not anything more than rhetoric in legal form. Either they are not willing to follow their principles in pursuit of serving the national interest or they do not have principles whatsoever beyond the pursuit of their own political interest.(2)
The latter seems to be the case. Unwilling to take any responsibility for the situation in Iraq and accept the potential political ramifications that might ensue should they translate their bombastic rhetoric into action, the Democrats in Congress freely polemicize yet conspicuously decline to follow through with constructive action of their own in an attempt to attain cheap political benefit.
After interviewing Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the Democrats’ ‘06 victories in the House, David Ignatius characterized the Democrats’ approach to Iraq as such. "The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."
If that is true than congressional Democrats are deliberately positioning themselves to gain politically from American failure and defeat. Victory or, if you prefer, shirking complete disaster in Iraq is undeniably in America’s interest, but the Democrats’ strategy is to refuse to do anything to accomplish either because it would run counter to their political interest. Ostensibly at least, they are putting party over nation.
This nakedly partisan and political approach would not even be that offensive if its consequences were limited only to domestic electoral politics. They are not though. Democratic strategies to score politically from failure in Iraq can only harm our men and women fighting in Iraq. When American soldiers are fighting and dying in a foreign land, their political leaders back home have an obligation to either support them absolutely or bring them home, whichever option their conviction leads them to take. Matters as grave and serious as war and peace mandate that the nation’s political leaders demonstrate decisive, principled leadership; not partisan and political opportunism guised as governance.
If congressional Democrats wish to take the public stance that our men and women in Iraq must come home than they must act within their means to effect that outcome. If they are not prepared to do this than they have an obligation to do all they can to support the American soldier serving in Iraq, or at the very least, should abstain from cutting him off at the knees. He deserves nothing less.
(1) Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates that "Congress shall have Power To...provide fore the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It is entirely within Congress’ power to simply stop appropriating for the Iraq war, as the Congress did in Vietnam.
(2) This is not to say that I believe America should "redeploy" from Iraq now or in the coming months, only that the Democratic majority in Congress which does, on balance, believe that, or at least publicly endorses and advocates the proposition, should act within their means to effect that outcome.
Congressional Democrats face this dilemma. With the lone exception of Senator Lieberman, they uniformly oppose the president’s adjusted strategy in Iraq and it is generally within their power to not only thwart its implementation but to even end our involvement in Iraq altogether.(1) Given this position, what are they to do? What are they compelled to do?
If their intent is to serve the nation’s interest and it is their conviction that sending more troops into Baghdad–and remaining in Iraq altogether–contradicts the national interest than they must act to prevent the surge and bring our forces home, or propose an alternative strategy. Courage and faithfulness to conviction obligates them to. After all, if you judge something to be wrong should you not act within your means to end it or at least prevent its propagation?
Well, apparently not. Democrats fulminate that not only is sending twenty-thousand more troops to Baghdad wrong, but that success in Iraq is no longer possible and that we ought to "redeploy" our forces precipitously. Logically, that means they would exercise their legislative powers to not only prevent our presence in Iraq from increasing, but to end it completely. As Rep. Dennis Kucinich has declared, "It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it. If you oppose the war, then don’t vote to fund it."
But in actuality the Democrats’ rhetoric does not extend beyond that; mere rhetoric. Instead of backing their words with action, non-binding resolutions have been introduced in both houses of Congress expressing their respective chambers’ opposition. That is not anything more than rhetoric in legal form. Either they are not willing to follow their principles in pursuit of serving the national interest or they do not have principles whatsoever beyond the pursuit of their own political interest.(2)
The latter seems to be the case. Unwilling to take any responsibility for the situation in Iraq and accept the potential political ramifications that might ensue should they translate their bombastic rhetoric into action, the Democrats in Congress freely polemicize yet conspicuously decline to follow through with constructive action of their own in an attempt to attain cheap political benefit.
After interviewing Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the Democrats’ ‘06 victories in the House, David Ignatius characterized the Democrats’ approach to Iraq as such. "The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."
If that is true than congressional Democrats are deliberately positioning themselves to gain politically from American failure and defeat. Victory or, if you prefer, shirking complete disaster in Iraq is undeniably in America’s interest, but the Democrats’ strategy is to refuse to do anything to accomplish either because it would run counter to their political interest. Ostensibly at least, they are putting party over nation.
This nakedly partisan and political approach would not even be that offensive if its consequences were limited only to domestic electoral politics. They are not though. Democratic strategies to score politically from failure in Iraq can only harm our men and women fighting in Iraq. When American soldiers are fighting and dying in a foreign land, their political leaders back home have an obligation to either support them absolutely or bring them home, whichever option their conviction leads them to take. Matters as grave and serious as war and peace mandate that the nation’s political leaders demonstrate decisive, principled leadership; not partisan and political opportunism guised as governance.
If congressional Democrats wish to take the public stance that our men and women in Iraq must come home than they must act within their means to effect that outcome. If they are not prepared to do this than they have an obligation to do all they can to support the American soldier serving in Iraq, or at the very least, should abstain from cutting him off at the knees. He deserves nothing less.
(1) Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates that "Congress shall have Power To...provide fore the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It is entirely within Congress’ power to simply stop appropriating for the Iraq war, as the Congress did in Vietnam.
(2) This is not to say that I believe America should "redeploy" from Iraq now or in the coming months, only that the Democratic majority in Congress which does, on balance, believe that, or at least publicly endorses and advocates the proposition, should act within their means to effect that outcome.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
A New Approach in Iraq
However much I have supported and defended the administration’s strategy in Iraq since the fall of Saddam in April ‘03—and continue to support our original goal of allowing for a stable, peaceful democracy to take hold there—the lack of clear political progress since the ratification of a permanent constitution and the perpetual deterioration of security on the ground, especially in and around Baghdad, leads me to no other conclusion than that our effort in Iraq is in need of a new strategy. Because it is the prevalence of violence which has prevented any tangible or visible political progress, that new strategy must focus upon forcefully ending the rampant sectarian violence that has permeated Baghdad and the insurgency that has given it cause. Accordingly, I would endorse the proposal posited by retired general Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan of a true"clear and hold" military approach with the requisite increase in American troops that would make this approach feasible. An increased force level is, as I now concede, long overdue and absolutely vital if the United States still intends to fulfill our original mission, which is in both the Iraqis’ and our own national interest.
Since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April of 2003, the main emphasis of American strategy has been to train Iraqi security forces to provide for their own nation’s security as rapidly as possible, a point that once reached would then make it possible and appropriate for American forces to come home. This always has been and should continue to be the objective. But for it to be effective, and for democratic institutions and habits to be given the environment to grow and take hold, the American military must provide basic security on the ground in the interim, until Iraqis have reached the requisite level of competence.
For the want of enough manpower, we have not been able to provide it, and a security vacuum now exists in Iraq. The largely Sunni based insurgency has focused its attacks on the predominant Shiite community and, in response, Shiites have felt compelled to turn to Shiite militias to provide security from Sunni attacks. The end result has been a bloody cycle of sectarian-based retribution, kidnaping, murder, and execution between Sunni and Shiite militias.
This cycle is out of control, and though progress behind the headlines is being made, democracy will not succeed in Iraq unless the Shiite-Sunni sectarian war is brought to an end—forcefully. As Robert Kagan and William Kristol have observed, "Unless the majority of Iraqis can be protected from terrorist bombers, insurgents, and death squads, they will not be able to negotiate and sustain any political solution." Iraqis want to be free and they want to live in peace and security. If we do not provide that until the Iraqi security and military forces can, than they will turn to the sectarian militias to do it.
Everything hinges upon securing Baghdad. Quoting Frederick Kagan, "about 80 percent of violence in Iraq occurs within a 35-mile radius of Baghdad, among a population of perhaps 10 million." To secure Baghdad, an increase in the amount of American forces in and around the capitol is requisite to effectively clearing the area of insurgents and sectarian militias and then holding it so they do not return. Our previous attempt at this, "Operation Together Forward," failed because there were not enough American troops to hold the streets and neighborhoods that had been cleared, allowing the insurgents and militias to creep back in.
A larger, reinforced American military presence in Baghdad should be able to rectify this, and effectively hold the cleared streets and neighborhoods that "Operation Together Forward" failed to.
Our previous experience in Iraq confirms this. Borrowing from Kagan and Kristol once more, "When U.S. forces in adequate numbers, together with Iraqi troops, cleared Tal Afar, Mosul, Falluja, Sadr City, and Najaf in 2004 and 2005, levels of violence in those areas dropped enormously. Economic activity picked up. Political leaders, rather than militia commanders, took charge."
None of this is to say that simply sending more American men and women to Baghdad is a silver bullet. Creating a larger presence is only half as important as what you do with that presence or who is leading it. On the latter point, President Bush has already made the decision to replace the current commanders on the ground, Generals Casey and Abizaid, with General George Petraeus.
This is a good start, but alone not enough. The newly reinforced American forces must also be tasked to go on the offensive, with the rules of engagement allowing them to take down insurgents and militia members and, most importantly, their leaders without undue restraint.
Moreover, the president’s likely plan to send additional forces to Baghdad is being commonly described as a troop "surge." This connotes a temporary increase—a blip—in the number of troops commissioned to secure Baghdad. This will do no good. Tom Donnelly is correct in emphasizing that, at this point, "The war can be lost in the next six months, but it cannot be won in the next six months." If increasing the amount of American troops in and around Baghdad is to make any difference at all those forces have to be given the time they need to accomplish their mission. An artificial timeline or a premature withdrawal will have rendered their deployment pointless.
A deployment of additional forces to Baghdad, given the time and the license to clear the area of insurgents and militias and prevent their return, is the only option we have left if we are to achieve our original goal in Iraq and the Iraqi people are to create a self-sustaining government. The only other option is a precipitous retreat from Iraq and all the chaos and bloodshed that would ensue.
From all indications, the president understands this and is prepared to act accordingly. Whatever issues can be taken with his tactics and strategy in Iraq to date, there can be no question that his heart has always been in the right place and that his political and moral courage regarding our venture in Iraq are indispensable. He has been willing to gamble everything—a second term, his presidency, his legacy—on creating a free and peaceful Iraq that will respect the lives and liberties of its own citizens and its neighbors. Political leadership of this courage and valor has always been rare, especially in these times. Whatever mistakes the president has made following the fall of Saddam, he deserves credit and appreciation for his persistence and determination to achieve victory in Iraq, a victory not many political leaders in America seem interested in anymore.
I would urge my fellow Americans to support him and this new effort, if for no other reason than because failing in Iraq would produce costs more catastrophic than this nation can bear. Victory is the only option.
********
Since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in April of 2003, the main emphasis of American strategy has been to train Iraqi security forces to provide for their own nation’s security as rapidly as possible, a point that once reached would then make it possible and appropriate for American forces to come home. This always has been and should continue to be the objective. But for it to be effective, and for democratic institutions and habits to be given the environment to grow and take hold, the American military must provide basic security on the ground in the interim, until Iraqis have reached the requisite level of competence.
For the want of enough manpower, we have not been able to provide it, and a security vacuum now exists in Iraq. The largely Sunni based insurgency has focused its attacks on the predominant Shiite community and, in response, Shiites have felt compelled to turn to Shiite militias to provide security from Sunni attacks. The end result has been a bloody cycle of sectarian-based retribution, kidnaping, murder, and execution between Sunni and Shiite militias.
This cycle is out of control, and though progress behind the headlines is being made, democracy will not succeed in Iraq unless the Shiite-Sunni sectarian war is brought to an end—forcefully. As Robert Kagan and William Kristol have observed, "Unless the majority of Iraqis can be protected from terrorist bombers, insurgents, and death squads, they will not be able to negotiate and sustain any political solution." Iraqis want to be free and they want to live in peace and security. If we do not provide that until the Iraqi security and military forces can, than they will turn to the sectarian militias to do it.
Everything hinges upon securing Baghdad. Quoting Frederick Kagan, "about 80 percent of violence in Iraq occurs within a 35-mile radius of Baghdad, among a population of perhaps 10 million." To secure Baghdad, an increase in the amount of American forces in and around the capitol is requisite to effectively clearing the area of insurgents and sectarian militias and then holding it so they do not return. Our previous attempt at this, "Operation Together Forward," failed because there were not enough American troops to hold the streets and neighborhoods that had been cleared, allowing the insurgents and militias to creep back in.
A larger, reinforced American military presence in Baghdad should be able to rectify this, and effectively hold the cleared streets and neighborhoods that "Operation Together Forward" failed to.
Our previous experience in Iraq confirms this. Borrowing from Kagan and Kristol once more, "When U.S. forces in adequate numbers, together with Iraqi troops, cleared Tal Afar, Mosul, Falluja, Sadr City, and Najaf in 2004 and 2005, levels of violence in those areas dropped enormously. Economic activity picked up. Political leaders, rather than militia commanders, took charge."
None of this is to say that simply sending more American men and women to Baghdad is a silver bullet. Creating a larger presence is only half as important as what you do with that presence or who is leading it. On the latter point, President Bush has already made the decision to replace the current commanders on the ground, Generals Casey and Abizaid, with General George Petraeus.
This is a good start, but alone not enough. The newly reinforced American forces must also be tasked to go on the offensive, with the rules of engagement allowing them to take down insurgents and militia members and, most importantly, their leaders without undue restraint.
Moreover, the president’s likely plan to send additional forces to Baghdad is being commonly described as a troop "surge." This connotes a temporary increase—a blip—in the number of troops commissioned to secure Baghdad. This will do no good. Tom Donnelly is correct in emphasizing that, at this point, "The war can be lost in the next six months, but it cannot be won in the next six months." If increasing the amount of American troops in and around Baghdad is to make any difference at all those forces have to be given the time they need to accomplish their mission. An artificial timeline or a premature withdrawal will have rendered their deployment pointless.
A deployment of additional forces to Baghdad, given the time and the license to clear the area of insurgents and militias and prevent their return, is the only option we have left if we are to achieve our original goal in Iraq and the Iraqi people are to create a self-sustaining government. The only other option is a precipitous retreat from Iraq and all the chaos and bloodshed that would ensue.
From all indications, the president understands this and is prepared to act accordingly. Whatever issues can be taken with his tactics and strategy in Iraq to date, there can be no question that his heart has always been in the right place and that his political and moral courage regarding our venture in Iraq are indispensable. He has been willing to gamble everything—a second term, his presidency, his legacy—on creating a free and peaceful Iraq that will respect the lives and liberties of its own citizens and its neighbors. Political leadership of this courage and valor has always been rare, especially in these times. Whatever mistakes the president has made following the fall of Saddam, he deserves credit and appreciation for his persistence and determination to achieve victory in Iraq, a victory not many political leaders in America seem interested in anymore.
I would urge my fellow Americans to support him and this new effort, if for no other reason than because failing in Iraq would produce costs more catastrophic than this nation can bear. Victory is the only option.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Minimum Wage
Among the items on Speaker Pelosi’s "First 100 Hours" legislative agenda is a hike in the federal minimum wage. I have no doubt that the Speaker and the new Democratic majority in the House have nothing but the best intentions behind this, but raising the minimum wage is an inherently bad idea.
At best, it will have little, if any effect or benefit upon those for whom it was intended to—low-wage workers trying to make ends meet. As George Will points out, "Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the .06% (479,000 in 2005) of America’s wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum wage live in families with household earnings below the poverty line." Beyond even that, 29 states already have minimum wages above the federal level and most workers who do earn the minimum wage are teenagers or young adults, not the major breadwinners of the household. As Rich Lowry observes, "The effect of the hike basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summer or after school."
At worst, a hike will hurt low-wage workers, new entrants into the workforce, and the economy as a whole. A minimum wage hike will cause businesses to raise the prices of their products and services to cover the increased costs of labor. Businesses rarely simply absorb increased costs, and if the minimum wage increases you can expect it will be the average consumer who will end up paying that increase.
Another unintended victim of a hike will be small businesses and their minimum wage earning employees, or those aspiring to be such. Most small businesses cannot simply absorb an increase in the cost of labor, even if they were benevolent enough to do so. They will be forced to either lay off those minimum wage earners in their employ whose wages now exceed what they can afford or they will simply not hire any new workers in the present or future. Those earning the minimum wage will be taking home more, but there will be fewer of them employed than there had been under the previous wage.
The intrinsic flaw in the whole idea of raising the minimum wage, and maybe in the concept of having a minimum wage altogether, is that labor is no different from any other economic commodity—its value and price is determined by the market. Raising the minimum wage is no less odious and no less harmful to the economy than government price controls. Government intervention only harms an economic market, or aggravates further a problem it was intended to remedy.
This is an inescapable lesson of our own history from the past century. Credit to Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues for their noble intentions, but a government-decreed, artificial wage hike will only harm the very people it was intended to aid, and everyone else for that matter. I agree with George Will: "Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly." The market will take care of itself and those within it so long as it is allowed to do so by government.
I would urge the House and the Congress against passing a federal minimum wage hike and, if one is passed, I would urge the president to veto it.
At best, it will have little, if any effect or benefit upon those for whom it was intended to—low-wage workers trying to make ends meet. As George Will points out, "Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the .06% (479,000 in 2005) of America’s wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum wage live in families with household earnings below the poverty line." Beyond even that, 29 states already have minimum wages above the federal level and most workers who do earn the minimum wage are teenagers or young adults, not the major breadwinners of the household. As Rich Lowry observes, "The effect of the hike basically will be to give a small boost to the wage of teenagers working summer or after school."
At worst, a hike will hurt low-wage workers, new entrants into the workforce, and the economy as a whole. A minimum wage hike will cause businesses to raise the prices of their products and services to cover the increased costs of labor. Businesses rarely simply absorb increased costs, and if the minimum wage increases you can expect it will be the average consumer who will end up paying that increase.
Another unintended victim of a hike will be small businesses and their minimum wage earning employees, or those aspiring to be such. Most small businesses cannot simply absorb an increase in the cost of labor, even if they were benevolent enough to do so. They will be forced to either lay off those minimum wage earners in their employ whose wages now exceed what they can afford or they will simply not hire any new workers in the present or future. Those earning the minimum wage will be taking home more, but there will be fewer of them employed than there had been under the previous wage.
The intrinsic flaw in the whole idea of raising the minimum wage, and maybe in the concept of having a minimum wage altogether, is that labor is no different from any other economic commodity—its value and price is determined by the market. Raising the minimum wage is no less odious and no less harmful to the economy than government price controls. Government intervention only harms an economic market, or aggravates further a problem it was intended to remedy.
This is an inescapable lesson of our own history from the past century. Credit to Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues for their noble intentions, but a government-decreed, artificial wage hike will only harm the very people it was intended to aid, and everyone else for that matter. I agree with George Will: "Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly." The market will take care of itself and those within it so long as it is allowed to do so by government.
I would urge the House and the Congress against passing a federal minimum wage hike and, if one is passed, I would urge the president to veto it.
Friday, December 29, 2006
President Ford
In the case of President Gerald R. Ford, his was a peculiar presidency unlike any other we have seen in quite some time. He is often referred to in historical review as "the accidental president." Woe to any man laid victim by such an "accident."
He was never elected president nor vice president. Instead, he was nominated and confirmed as vice president and made president by the resignation in disgrace of his predecessor little over a year later.
From the moment he lowered his right hand he was the leader of a nation wounded and bitter following month after wretched month of Watergate and years of division over the Vietnam war. He faced the task (the term "daunting" seems pathetically incommensurate in even beginning to describe that task) of leading a nation whose people had lost all confidence in his newly inherited office—and government in general—without even the benefit of having been elected and legitimized by their ballots as president or vice president in the first place.
Recognizing the apparent hopelessness of his situation, he observed in his inaugural remarks, "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers."
Prayer, and lots of it, seemed appropriate and necessary for our thirty-eighth president as he entered office. Under such weight and pressure most men would crumble. But fortunately for himself and for the nation, President Ford was not most men. He was genuinely good and decent. He loved his wife, his family, and his nation. He was the friend of many and the enemy of none. Of most advantage to his presidency and its context in history, he was uniquely courageous and concerned solely with the interest and welfare of America, even if that interest conflicted with his own personal and political interests.
This character attribute was manifested in his pardon of President Nixon, undisputably the weightiest action of his brief presidency. Many in the nation anticipated and relished the prosecution and punishment of President Nixon, and reacted to the pardon in vitriolic anger. But President Ford understood that the trial of a former president would only tear at the nation further, and that for wounds to be healed and for life to continue anew the affair must end and the ordeal must be put in the past. The pardon devastated his presidency politically, probably determining his defeat in ‘76, but it was a selfless act of statesmanship that advanced the national interest. It was highly unpopular politically, but it was the right thing to do.
This statesmanship is in short supply today, and given the consequence of the challenges and issues we as a nation currently face, we are in desperate need of it. It was this statesmanship, this sterling character, that guided President Ford through his trials as president and the nation through their own.
This alone validates his presidency. Beyond the immediate legacy and ramifications of Watergate and its effect on his presidency, one, especially a conservative, could easily take issue with a number of President Ford’s decisions and policies. But none of them measure up in importance to his calming influence amidst the storms of Watergate and the opportunity he provided America to heal.
He was the right man in a time of grave need. His presidency, his decades of public service, and his life and legacy are a credit to the United States. As his countrymen mourn his death we treasure his memory fondly and honor him with every measure of gratefulness for his contributions and service, most especially those rendered as president in our time of trial.
Thank you and goodbye, Mr. President.
He was never elected president nor vice president. Instead, he was nominated and confirmed as vice president and made president by the resignation in disgrace of his predecessor little over a year later.
From the moment he lowered his right hand he was the leader of a nation wounded and bitter following month after wretched month of Watergate and years of division over the Vietnam war. He faced the task (the term "daunting" seems pathetically incommensurate in even beginning to describe that task) of leading a nation whose people had lost all confidence in his newly inherited office—and government in general—without even the benefit of having been elected and legitimized by their ballots as president or vice president in the first place.
Recognizing the apparent hopelessness of his situation, he observed in his inaugural remarks, "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers."
Prayer, and lots of it, seemed appropriate and necessary for our thirty-eighth president as he entered office. Under such weight and pressure most men would crumble. But fortunately for himself and for the nation, President Ford was not most men. He was genuinely good and decent. He loved his wife, his family, and his nation. He was the friend of many and the enemy of none. Of most advantage to his presidency and its context in history, he was uniquely courageous and concerned solely with the interest and welfare of America, even if that interest conflicted with his own personal and political interests.
This character attribute was manifested in his pardon of President Nixon, undisputably the weightiest action of his brief presidency. Many in the nation anticipated and relished the prosecution and punishment of President Nixon, and reacted to the pardon in vitriolic anger. But President Ford understood that the trial of a former president would only tear at the nation further, and that for wounds to be healed and for life to continue anew the affair must end and the ordeal must be put in the past. The pardon devastated his presidency politically, probably determining his defeat in ‘76, but it was a selfless act of statesmanship that advanced the national interest. It was highly unpopular politically, but it was the right thing to do.
This statesmanship is in short supply today, and given the consequence of the challenges and issues we as a nation currently face, we are in desperate need of it. It was this statesmanship, this sterling character, that guided President Ford through his trials as president and the nation through their own.
This alone validates his presidency. Beyond the immediate legacy and ramifications of Watergate and its effect on his presidency, one, especially a conservative, could easily take issue with a number of President Ford’s decisions and policies. But none of them measure up in importance to his calming influence amidst the storms of Watergate and the opportunity he provided America to heal.
He was the right man in a time of grave need. His presidency, his decades of public service, and his life and legacy are a credit to the United States. As his countrymen mourn his death we treasure his memory fondly and honor him with every measure of gratefulness for his contributions and service, most especially those rendered as president in our time of trial.
Thank you and goodbye, Mr. President.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The Iraq Study Group
For all the preemptive media hype behind the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and its report and recommendations on the situation in Iraq, the Group’s actual final product has turned out to be, in all reality, a tasteless joke. Their mandate was to provide a well-deliberated way forward in Iraq. What they actually came up with was almost literally a plagiarization of the current strategy. Among their 79 befuddled recommendations, the Group proposes that American forces "should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel...imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units" so as to accelerate the training of Iraqi units and hasten the time when "U.S. forces [can] begin to move out of Iraq."
It did not take an independent review of the situation in Iraq from an independent study group to formulate this approach, it is simply a rewording of the current approach, which is and always has been to train Iraqi forces to assume the security of their country so American forces can come home. As the president has been fond of saying, "As Iraqis stand up, we stand down."
The problem is that in the three and half years that have elapsed between the deposition of Saddam Hussein and now, this strategy hasn’t worked, which was why the ISG was commissioned in the first place. We didn’t need James Baker, Lee Hamilton, and company—as venerated as statesmen as they are—to come up with the approach that they ultimately did. Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department had already done so and had put it into practice. For all intensive purposes, the ISG simply nodded towards Donald Rumsfeld and said, "Yeah, what he said."
Aggravating their farce of a plan further, the ISG calls upon "the United States to engage" the neighboring nations of Iran and Syria "constructively." Supposedly, we should employ incentives and disincentives—colloquially referred to as carrots and sticks—to persuade both nations to "influence events within Iraq" because it is in "their interest to avoid chaos in Iraq" just as it is ours.
That flatly is not true. Chaos and failure within Iraq is entirely within both Syria’s and Iran’s self-interest, or else they would not be actively engaged in deliberate efforts to incur both. A constructive dialogue between the United States and Syria and Iran would be completely pointless because our interests and theirs are diametrically opposed.
What is needed in Iraq is a new strategy for achieving the goals we had when we went into the country originally. The ISG was tasked to provide one. Upon that point they failed. Such is the rotten fruit of a commission whose main goal was to present a consensus report, not to present the fresh, cogent, and most of all useful path forward asked of them. The ISG got their consensus, but left us, to borrow from the headline of a recent editorial in The Weekly Standard, "a perfect failure" of a plan.
It did not take an independent review of the situation in Iraq from an independent study group to formulate this approach, it is simply a rewording of the current approach, which is and always has been to train Iraqi forces to assume the security of their country so American forces can come home. As the president has been fond of saying, "As Iraqis stand up, we stand down."
The problem is that in the three and half years that have elapsed between the deposition of Saddam Hussein and now, this strategy hasn’t worked, which was why the ISG was commissioned in the first place. We didn’t need James Baker, Lee Hamilton, and company—as venerated as statesmen as they are—to come up with the approach that they ultimately did. Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department had already done so and had put it into practice. For all intensive purposes, the ISG simply nodded towards Donald Rumsfeld and said, "Yeah, what he said."
Aggravating their farce of a plan further, the ISG calls upon "the United States to engage" the neighboring nations of Iran and Syria "constructively." Supposedly, we should employ incentives and disincentives—colloquially referred to as carrots and sticks—to persuade both nations to "influence events within Iraq" because it is in "their interest to avoid chaos in Iraq" just as it is ours.
That flatly is not true. Chaos and failure within Iraq is entirely within both Syria’s and Iran’s self-interest, or else they would not be actively engaged in deliberate efforts to incur both. A constructive dialogue between the United States and Syria and Iran would be completely pointless because our interests and theirs are diametrically opposed.
What is needed in Iraq is a new strategy for achieving the goals we had when we went into the country originally. The ISG was tasked to provide one. Upon that point they failed. Such is the rotten fruit of a commission whose main goal was to present a consensus report, not to present the fresh, cogent, and most of all useful path forward asked of them. The ISG got their consensus, but left us, to borrow from the headline of a recent editorial in The Weekly Standard, "a perfect failure" of a plan.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
'06 PLU GOP Platform: Social Security
In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. By the time today’s young workers begin to retire there will only be 2 workers to support every recipient. Under the current system, today's 30-year-old worker will face a 26% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.
To keep the current social security system as it stands is to ensure a grim financial future for retirees. A sure fire way around this is to allow citizens who so choose to create personal savings accounts invested in the stock market. Over the past 17 years the stock market has produced an average 12% gain, certainly better than the 26% loss the current system will provide.
Personal savings accounts will guarantee today’s young workers not only security in retirement, but prosperity. A twenty-year old male can expect to pay $418, 517 in Social Security taxes over his working life. He can expect to receive $2, 734 in monthly Social Security benefits when he retires, amounting to a pathetic -0.95% rate of return.
However, if that twenty-year old male had been allowed to place all of his Social Security taxes in a personal savings account he would have a total of $1,192,881 in accrued wealth at retirement. Monthly benefits would end up being $9,717, or $6,983 more a month than he would receive under the current Social Security system.
At the very least, the federal government must stop spending the annual Social Security surplus on programs and expenditures completely unrelated to Social Security. That surplus should either be saved for the day when the current Social Security program is no longer solvent or, as we propose, it should be returned to those who pay into the system via the Social Security tax for a smaller personal savings account, which would compliment the regular Social Security benefits they would receive upon retirement in the current system.
* Co-authored with Chris Allen, Policy Advisor, PLU GOP.
To keep the current social security system as it stands is to ensure a grim financial future for retirees. A sure fire way around this is to allow citizens who so choose to create personal savings accounts invested in the stock market. Over the past 17 years the stock market has produced an average 12% gain, certainly better than the 26% loss the current system will provide.
Personal savings accounts will guarantee today’s young workers not only security in retirement, but prosperity. A twenty-year old male can expect to pay $418, 517 in Social Security taxes over his working life. He can expect to receive $2, 734 in monthly Social Security benefits when he retires, amounting to a pathetic -0.95% rate of return.
However, if that twenty-year old male had been allowed to place all of his Social Security taxes in a personal savings account he would have a total of $1,192,881 in accrued wealth at retirement. Monthly benefits would end up being $9,717, or $6,983 more a month than he would receive under the current Social Security system.
At the very least, the federal government must stop spending the annual Social Security surplus on programs and expenditures completely unrelated to Social Security. That surplus should either be saved for the day when the current Social Security program is no longer solvent or, as we propose, it should be returned to those who pay into the system via the Social Security tax for a smaller personal savings account, which would compliment the regular Social Security benefits they would receive upon retirement in the current system.
* Co-authored with Chris Allen, Policy Advisor, PLU GOP.
'06 PLU GOP Platform: The Economy
As Republicans, the PLU GOP intrinsically believes that government governs best when it governs least. We hold this especially true regarding the economy.
For the economy to be prosperous and dynamic, the American people must be left more of their own money to spend, save, or invest as they see fit. We believe the individual American taxpayer, not the government, knows the best manner through which to handle their own money. For this reason, we support the president's tax cuts and advocate their permanent extension.
Moreover, we believe the federal tax code should be reformed altogether, with the current anti-growth IRS code being replaced by what the president called in his 2004 acceptance speech a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth code." Instead of discouraging economic growth by taxing earnings and savings and investment, we should tax consumption at one flat rate, with exemptions for those with the lowest incomes. Such a transition, estimates Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, would permanently increase national income by 10-15 percent. It would undoubtedly be a huge wind to the sails of our economy to abolish the IRS, double taxation on savings, the death tax, and taxes on dividends and capital gains.
The role we do envision the government playing in the economy is a very limited one. We believe that the government should help Americans acquire the tools they need in order to thrive and make a good living, and then get out of the way. Government should be there, whenever possible, to provide financial assistance to Americans seeking a college education or technical training to gain an expertise in a specific career field. The government should promote self-sufficiency by giving the individual the tools he or she needs to be self-sufficient. The government should also make self-sufficiency easier to maintain by, we reiterate, taxing less of what working individuals earn.
We also call upon the federal government to restrain wasteful government spending. Government should be no different than any home or business. It should live within its means and, wherever possible, balance its budget and minimize its debt.
We openly acknowledge that as the majority in both houses of congress it has been Republicans who have routinely ignored this approach over the years. Accordingly, the PLU GOP calls upon both parties---Republican and Democrat---to end the wasteful pork-barrel spending that has existed in Washington D.C. for too long and to set responsible budgets that do not saddle ours and future generations with exorbitant debt.
For the economy to be prosperous and dynamic, the American people must be left more of their own money to spend, save, or invest as they see fit. We believe the individual American taxpayer, not the government, knows the best manner through which to handle their own money. For this reason, we support the president's tax cuts and advocate their permanent extension.
Moreover, we believe the federal tax code should be reformed altogether, with the current anti-growth IRS code being replaced by what the president called in his 2004 acceptance speech a "simpler, fairer, pro-growth code." Instead of discouraging economic growth by taxing earnings and savings and investment, we should tax consumption at one flat rate, with exemptions for those with the lowest incomes. Such a transition, estimates Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, would permanently increase national income by 10-15 percent. It would undoubtedly be a huge wind to the sails of our economy to abolish the IRS, double taxation on savings, the death tax, and taxes on dividends and capital gains.
The role we do envision the government playing in the economy is a very limited one. We believe that the government should help Americans acquire the tools they need in order to thrive and make a good living, and then get out of the way. Government should be there, whenever possible, to provide financial assistance to Americans seeking a college education or technical training to gain an expertise in a specific career field. The government should promote self-sufficiency by giving the individual the tools he or she needs to be self-sufficient. The government should also make self-sufficiency easier to maintain by, we reiterate, taxing less of what working individuals earn.
We also call upon the federal government to restrain wasteful government spending. Government should be no different than any home or business. It should live within its means and, wherever possible, balance its budget and minimize its debt.
We openly acknowledge that as the majority in both houses of congress it has been Republicans who have routinely ignored this approach over the years. Accordingly, the PLU GOP calls upon both parties---Republican and Democrat---to end the wasteful pork-barrel spending that has existed in Washington D.C. for too long and to set responsible budgets that do not saddle ours and future generations with exorbitant debt.
'06 PLU GOP Platform: Iraq
Whether you agreed with the decision to liberate Iraq or not, that debate is immaterial to the one we need to have now that we are there. The question we must answer at this point is do we stay in Iraq until that country has established a stable, republican government and a capacity to secure itself, or do we withdraw—or set a timetable for withdrawal—before those objectives have been met? We, the PLU GOP, believe we must stay and fulfill the mission in Iraq, for several reasons.
One, to retreat from Iraq would make America less safe. It would leave us a defeated nation and the Islamic holy warriors and jihadists of the world would know it. They would become even more emboldened, more ruthless, and more murderous in their barbarous mission to kill Americans. As President Bush has said, the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq "will follow us" should we prematurely leave Iraq. Security here at home depends upon us winning the fight against terror in Iraq.
Second, an American retreat from Iraq would only empower Iran and North Korea in their pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons. Demonstrating America’s strength by staying in Iraq until victory will leave us in a much stronger position to check the belligerence of both rogue nations. The diplomacy of a strong and victorious nation carries much more weight and credibility than that of a defeated and disgraced one.
Third, to do anything other than fulfill our mission in Iraq would be to break the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people. They have begun the process of rebuilding their nation. They have voted in the midst of violence. They have fought and died for their nation. They have done all of this because the United States of America has stood behind them and promised to support them in their quest to build a new, free Iraq. It would be a tragic dishonor and blight upon this nation to break that promise.
Finally, we must stay in Iraq to honor the ultimate sacrifice thousands of brave American men and women have made there. They fought and died so that Iraq may be free and the United States and the world may be more secure. America must not forsake their sacrifice and we must insure they did not die for nothing. If for no other reason, we must stay in Iraq until our mission is complete for our lost servicemen and women. We owe them nothing less.
One, to retreat from Iraq would make America less safe. It would leave us a defeated nation and the Islamic holy warriors and jihadists of the world would know it. They would become even more emboldened, more ruthless, and more murderous in their barbarous mission to kill Americans. As President Bush has said, the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq "will follow us" should we prematurely leave Iraq. Security here at home depends upon us winning the fight against terror in Iraq.
Second, an American retreat from Iraq would only empower Iran and North Korea in their pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons. Demonstrating America’s strength by staying in Iraq until victory will leave us in a much stronger position to check the belligerence of both rogue nations. The diplomacy of a strong and victorious nation carries much more weight and credibility than that of a defeated and disgraced one.
Third, to do anything other than fulfill our mission in Iraq would be to break the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people. They have begun the process of rebuilding their nation. They have voted in the midst of violence. They have fought and died for their nation. They have done all of this because the United States of America has stood behind them and promised to support them in their quest to build a new, free Iraq. It would be a tragic dishonor and blight upon this nation to break that promise.
Finally, we must stay in Iraq to honor the ultimate sacrifice thousands of brave American men and women have made there. They fought and died so that Iraq may be free and the United States and the world may be more secure. America must not forsake their sacrifice and we must insure they did not die for nothing. If for no other reason, we must stay in Iraq until our mission is complete for our lost servicemen and women. We owe them nothing less.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate
(Letter to the Editor, The Mast, November 3, 2006 Volume LXXXIV, NO. 8)
From the war in Iraq to the deficit and health care, this nation is faced with significant challenges. The resolution of these challenges demands leaders and representatives who are serious about working with those with whom they both agree and disagree, not ones more interested in playing the game of partisan politics. We need leaders in this day and age, not politicians.
For this reason, the PLU GOP endorses Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate. Mike isn't interested in the politics as usual prevalent in Washington D.C. today. He isn't interested in the common practice of looking towards his party to know how to vote, or in engaging in the rancorous and bitter political discourse that has poisoned our political process.
Mike McGavick is dedicated to working with others to solve problems and confront challenges, and he has the experience to do it. When Mike took over at SAFECO Insurance as CEO the company was losing $1 billion a year. However, by demonstrating strong leadership and making tough decisions to solve problems, SAFECO was profitable by the time he left.
If elected to the Senate, Mike will demonstrate the same determination and leadership in solving the problems and challenges that confront our great nation. We agree with The Seattle Times: "McGavick...showed at SAFECO that he was able to take on big problems. We think he could make an innovative and influential senator for Washington."
We urge our fellow Lutes to cast their votes for Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate.
From the war in Iraq to the deficit and health care, this nation is faced with significant challenges. The resolution of these challenges demands leaders and representatives who are serious about working with those with whom they both agree and disagree, not ones more interested in playing the game of partisan politics. We need leaders in this day and age, not politicians.
For this reason, the PLU GOP endorses Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate. Mike isn't interested in the politics as usual prevalent in Washington D.C. today. He isn't interested in the common practice of looking towards his party to know how to vote, or in engaging in the rancorous and bitter political discourse that has poisoned our political process.
Mike McGavick is dedicated to working with others to solve problems and confront challenges, and he has the experience to do it. When Mike took over at SAFECO Insurance as CEO the company was losing $1 billion a year. However, by demonstrating strong leadership and making tough decisions to solve problems, SAFECO was profitable by the time he left.
If elected to the Senate, Mike will demonstrate the same determination and leadership in solving the problems and challenges that confront our great nation. We agree with The Seattle Times: "McGavick...showed at SAFECO that he was able to take on big problems. We think he could make an innovative and influential senator for Washington."
We urge our fellow Lutes to cast their votes for Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Presidential Signing Statements
The ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine purports to be standing up for the separation of powers and the rule of law in its stance opposing presidential signing statements. In fact, the ABA task force’s recommendations would controvert the separation of powers, in that they would infringe upon the president’s constitutional right and responsibility to execute the laws.
As chief executive in our constitutional system of government, per Section II of the constitution, it is the president’s responsibility to execute the laws of the United States. Requisite to executing a law is interpreting it. No one can deny that you cannot enforce a law without first determining its meaning. A presidential signing statement is simply a public revelation of that interpretation. Take away presidential signing statements and you ultimately take away nothing. Quoting from the editors of National Review, "presidents will have to interpret statutes, interpret the Constitution, and try to harmonize those interpretations, whether they announce their views in a signing statement or not."
The task force’s primary objection with presidential signing statements is that some of them contain a declaration from the president that he will not enforce a measure or aspect of the law he deems to be unconstitutional. This is, supposedly, "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." The task force advises that if the president deems a law to be unconstitutional he should veto it.
This is nonsense, both in practice and in principle. Does the task force really believe the president should veto every bill in whole if it contains one provision he deems to be unconstitutional? As Ed Whelan has pointed out at Bench Memos, this "position would lead, at best, to an insane game of chicken between the President and Congress and, quite probably, to a collapse of governmental operations."
Such a collapse would be unnecessary. As asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, an opinion which the task force cites, "a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law." Any act of congress contrary to the constitution is automatically voided by its very unconstitutionality. This is true whether or not the president vetoes it or the Supreme Court, or any lower court, declares it to be so.
Moreover, it is within the president’s power to not execute a law regardless of its constitutionality. This is not a contradiction or violation of the separation of powers doctrine, it is intrinsically a hallmark of it. As I just stated, attendant to possessing the power of execution is the right to use one’s own discretion in exercising that power. If, in using that discretion, the president elects not to enforce or execute a law than so be it. His right and possession of the executive power, within the constitutional framework of separate powers, allows him to do so. Just as congress’ sole power to legislate necessarily entails the right not to legislate, so too does the president’s right to execute the law necessarily entail the right not to execute.
This is how it must be if the separate powers system is to survive. For the congress or the judiciary to compel the president to execute a law would be for them to violate the boundaries composing the separation of powers and to usurp the executive powers of the president unto themselves. Compelling the branch which reserves the right to execute to actually execute is, in itself, an exercise of executive power. This is constitutionally intolerable.
How can this even be objected to? If you object to the president asserting his right to exercise discretion in the fulfillment of his duties and the exercise of his powers than you must also assert that the Justice Department, as an administrative agency of the executive branch, must prosecute every crime it believes to have been committed. After all, the decision not to prosecute the violation of law is, in fact, a decision not to execute the law.
Granted, the task force does not directly recommend that the president be compelled by congress or the judiciary to execute the laws. Instead, it recommends the next best thing, urging "Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues , and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement."
Much is wrong with this.
One, in a system of co-equal branches with separate powers the congress has no authority or basis to compel the executive to explain why he did or didn’t exercise his executive powers in the manner he did or didn’t. If congress determines that the president exercised his power unlawfully or in contradiction to the constitution then they may impeach. This is the legislative’s check on the executive. Congress has no more right to compel the president to explain or justify the manner in which he exercised his executive power than either congress or the president do to compel the supreme court to justify or explain its decision not to hear a case appealed to it.
Second, the task force’s mention and defense of "the clear intent of Congress" is problematic, both because it is undeterminable and because it wouldn’t be controlling upon the president even if it was.
What would determine congressional intent? A committee report? A floor speech? There are five-hundred and thirty-five members in two houses of congress, all with their own unique motivations and interpretations behind voting to pass or reject a given bill. How do you glean one "clear" intent from that? The one way to insure a new law will never be executed by the president is to compel him to determine the undeterminable prior to the law’s implementation, which is exactly what we would be doing if we compelled the president to execute a law in conformity with "the clear intent of Congress."
Even if "clear intent" could be discerned, it still would not be controlling upon the president, for two reasons.
As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out, "it is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."1 In executing a law, the president is bound by the text of that law, not by whatever congress intended the law to say or mean.
Also, congressional intent behind a law is not controlling on the president in his enforcement of that law because congress does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process.2 If it did, the framers would have allowed a congressional bill to become law without a presidential signature. The argument that congressional intent is controlling upon the meaning of a law is invalidated by the constitutionally provided presidential power to sign or veto a bill and the judiciary’s power to void a law as unconstitutional if necessary. It is a system we familiarly call checks and balances.
Critics of this piece may claim that I give the president immunity to do what he pleases with the law. Not at all. I assert that being possessed of the power and responsibility to execute the laws of the United States means the president has the attendant, incorrigible power to not execute a law, or aspect of a law, per his discretion. Being able to follow his own discretion and not enforce a law is a far cry from asserting he can act in contradiction and violation of the laws, which I do not assert. The right to inaction is not the same as a right to action unlawful.
The president, according to his Article II powers as chief executive of the laws of the United States, has an inherent right to not only interpret those laws, but to not, according to his own discretion, enforce those laws he deems unworthy of his enforcement. In our constitutional regime of separation of powers such is the president’s sovereign power. For congress to challenge this, or demand the president justify his use of that power, would be for it to unconstitutionally infringe upon the president’s executive power by exercising executive power itself. This, not presidential signing statements and their content, would violate the inviolable constitutional system of separate and distinct powers. Accordingly, I disagree with the ABA task force’s conclusions and arguments.
1. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
2. It has sacrosanct power over the power to legislate, or to craft and pass legislation, but it does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process, which only begins with the crafting and passing of legislation and ultimately continues on into that piece of legislation becoming law.
As chief executive in our constitutional system of government, per Section II of the constitution, it is the president’s responsibility to execute the laws of the United States. Requisite to executing a law is interpreting it. No one can deny that you cannot enforce a law without first determining its meaning. A presidential signing statement is simply a public revelation of that interpretation. Take away presidential signing statements and you ultimately take away nothing. Quoting from the editors of National Review, "presidents will have to interpret statutes, interpret the Constitution, and try to harmonize those interpretations, whether they announce their views in a signing statement or not."
The task force’s primary objection with presidential signing statements is that some of them contain a declaration from the president that he will not enforce a measure or aspect of the law he deems to be unconstitutional. This is, supposedly, "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." The task force advises that if the president deems a law to be unconstitutional he should veto it.
This is nonsense, both in practice and in principle. Does the task force really believe the president should veto every bill in whole if it contains one provision he deems to be unconstitutional? As Ed Whelan has pointed out at Bench Memos, this "position would lead, at best, to an insane game of chicken between the President and Congress and, quite probably, to a collapse of governmental operations."
Such a collapse would be unnecessary. As asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, an opinion which the task force cites, "a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law." Any act of congress contrary to the constitution is automatically voided by its very unconstitutionality. This is true whether or not the president vetoes it or the Supreme Court, or any lower court, declares it to be so.
Moreover, it is within the president’s power to not execute a law regardless of its constitutionality. This is not a contradiction or violation of the separation of powers doctrine, it is intrinsically a hallmark of it. As I just stated, attendant to possessing the power of execution is the right to use one’s own discretion in exercising that power. If, in using that discretion, the president elects not to enforce or execute a law than so be it. His right and possession of the executive power, within the constitutional framework of separate powers, allows him to do so. Just as congress’ sole power to legislate necessarily entails the right not to legislate, so too does the president’s right to execute the law necessarily entail the right not to execute.
This is how it must be if the separate powers system is to survive. For the congress or the judiciary to compel the president to execute a law would be for them to violate the boundaries composing the separation of powers and to usurp the executive powers of the president unto themselves. Compelling the branch which reserves the right to execute to actually execute is, in itself, an exercise of executive power. This is constitutionally intolerable.
How can this even be objected to? If you object to the president asserting his right to exercise discretion in the fulfillment of his duties and the exercise of his powers than you must also assert that the Justice Department, as an administrative agency of the executive branch, must prosecute every crime it believes to have been committed. After all, the decision not to prosecute the violation of law is, in fact, a decision not to execute the law.
Granted, the task force does not directly recommend that the president be compelled by congress or the judiciary to execute the laws. Instead, it recommends the next best thing, urging "Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues , and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement."
Much is wrong with this.
One, in a system of co-equal branches with separate powers the congress has no authority or basis to compel the executive to explain why he did or didn’t exercise his executive powers in the manner he did or didn’t. If congress determines that the president exercised his power unlawfully or in contradiction to the constitution then they may impeach. This is the legislative’s check on the executive. Congress has no more right to compel the president to explain or justify the manner in which he exercised his executive power than either congress or the president do to compel the supreme court to justify or explain its decision not to hear a case appealed to it.
Second, the task force’s mention and defense of "the clear intent of Congress" is problematic, both because it is undeterminable and because it wouldn’t be controlling upon the president even if it was.
What would determine congressional intent? A committee report? A floor speech? There are five-hundred and thirty-five members in two houses of congress, all with their own unique motivations and interpretations behind voting to pass or reject a given bill. How do you glean one "clear" intent from that? The one way to insure a new law will never be executed by the president is to compel him to determine the undeterminable prior to the law’s implementation, which is exactly what we would be doing if we compelled the president to execute a law in conformity with "the clear intent of Congress."
Even if "clear intent" could be discerned, it still would not be controlling upon the president, for two reasons.
As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out, "it is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver."1 In executing a law, the president is bound by the text of that law, not by whatever congress intended the law to say or mean.
Also, congressional intent behind a law is not controlling on the president in his enforcement of that law because congress does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process.2 If it did, the framers would have allowed a congressional bill to become law without a presidential signature. The argument that congressional intent is controlling upon the meaning of a law is invalidated by the constitutionally provided presidential power to sign or veto a bill and the judiciary’s power to void a law as unconstitutional if necessary. It is a system we familiarly call checks and balances.
Critics of this piece may claim that I give the president immunity to do what he pleases with the law. Not at all. I assert that being possessed of the power and responsibility to execute the laws of the United States means the president has the attendant, incorrigible power to not execute a law, or aspect of a law, per his discretion. Being able to follow his own discretion and not enforce a law is a far cry from asserting he can act in contradiction and violation of the laws, which I do not assert. The right to inaction is not the same as a right to action unlawful.
The president, according to his Article II powers as chief executive of the laws of the United States, has an inherent right to not only interpret those laws, but to not, according to his own discretion, enforce those laws he deems unworthy of his enforcement. In our constitutional regime of separation of powers such is the president’s sovereign power. For congress to challenge this, or demand the president justify his use of that power, would be for it to unconstitutionally infringe upon the president’s executive power by exercising executive power itself. This, not presidential signing statements and their content, would violate the inviolable constitutional system of separate and distinct powers. Accordingly, I disagree with the ABA task force’s conclusions and arguments.
1. Scalia, Antonin (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (p. 17.)
2. It has sacrosanct power over the power to legislate, or to craft and pass legislation, but it does not have sacrosanct power over the legislative process, which only begins with the crafting and passing of legislation and ultimately continues on into that piece of legislation becoming law.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Time to Focus
It is an unserious political state we live in today. North Korea, a Last of the Mohicans of Stalinist states, tested a nuclear weapon yesterday, and has been acting provocatively for weeks and months now, even years. This behavior, and the country’s possession of nuclear weapons in general, pointedly threatens the physical security of the Pacific republics, namely Japan and South Korea, as well as our own. In a focused national political discussion, we would be weighing our options and debating and discussing the appropriate response and strategies to elect as a consequence.
Instead, we spent the past week indecorously indulging in an obsessive and microscopic scrutiny of the inappropriate e-mails of a perverted congressman to his underage page.
This is but another example in an odious trend. As we have waged a war on terror, sought to establish a stable and republican nation in Iraq, and attempted to stymie Iran from developing a nuclear capacity of its own, we have been consumed and distracted by frivolous "outing" of CIA agent and "Maccaca" scandals. As opposed to rolling up our sleeves and developing a plan to prevent a nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map from acquiring the means to do so, we have worshiped at the feet of the narcissistic Joe Wilson and gloried at the thought of Karl Rove in a prison jumpsuit.
My question is why? Why do we waste so much time on that which matters so little? We live in a serious time in a dangerous world, a situation insistent upon leaders and representatives who are concentrated on developing strategies to steward our republic through them, and upon a citizenry that will demand this statesmanship from their leaders.
This is especially true in an election season. We are only a month away from choosing representatives who will be among the individuals vested with the responsibility of addressing these issues for the next two years. If there is ever a time for sober contemplation, debate, and discussion, now is that time.
The tabloid issues that we have concentrated upon aren’t worth even peripheral notice, let alone unadulterated attention. That stuff deserves the scrutiny of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, not of our national political class and leadership. The issues we face are simply too big for us to dwell on matters so small and, ultimately, so inconsequential.
Instead, we spent the past week indecorously indulging in an obsessive and microscopic scrutiny of the inappropriate e-mails of a perverted congressman to his underage page.
This is but another example in an odious trend. As we have waged a war on terror, sought to establish a stable and republican nation in Iraq, and attempted to stymie Iran from developing a nuclear capacity of its own, we have been consumed and distracted by frivolous "outing" of CIA agent and "Maccaca" scandals. As opposed to rolling up our sleeves and developing a plan to prevent a nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map from acquiring the means to do so, we have worshiped at the feet of the narcissistic Joe Wilson and gloried at the thought of Karl Rove in a prison jumpsuit.
My question is why? Why do we waste so much time on that which matters so little? We live in a serious time in a dangerous world, a situation insistent upon leaders and representatives who are concentrated on developing strategies to steward our republic through them, and upon a citizenry that will demand this statesmanship from their leaders.
This is especially true in an election season. We are only a month away from choosing representatives who will be among the individuals vested with the responsibility of addressing these issues for the next two years. If there is ever a time for sober contemplation, debate, and discussion, now is that time.
The tabloid issues that we have concentrated upon aren’t worth even peripheral notice, let alone unadulterated attention. That stuff deserves the scrutiny of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, not of our national political class and leadership. The issues we face are simply too big for us to dwell on matters so small and, ultimately, so inconsequential.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Your Head vs. Your Heart
The recent Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Rhode Island was another manifestation of the perpetual conundrum members of both parties face in a primary, especially when they are in a state predominantly inclined towards the other party. Does one vote for the candidate most ideologically homologous to themself, or do they vote for the candidate who may be farther to the left or right than they are but who ultimately stands the greatest chance of winning the general election?
When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.
Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.
Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.
Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.
Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.
Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.
When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.
Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.
Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.
Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.
Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.
Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Response
Has our national political discourse really become so poisoned and so irrational that when we disagree with each other we pour upon the other a cacophony of personal and ad hominem attacks instead of actually stating our disagreements in a civil interchange of reasoned argumentation? Don't get me wrong, the recent barrage of base expletives was quite amusing, in the same way that watching the guests of the Jerry Springer show act in the same manner is. But the entertainment value of the behavior of those who took issue with me is far outweighed by the appalling commentary such behavior provides on the churlish nature of our national political dialogue.
If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.
Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don't have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we're all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.
To respond to the "chickenhawk" label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a "chickenhawk" in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.
To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a "chickenhawk" is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal's strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, "Love it or leave it!" It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.
The "chickenhawk" rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn't, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity---activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: "Well if you like her so much why don't you marry her?"
If an able-bodied civilian can't support the war---or think we should persevere until we do win---without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can't say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.
Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.
There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America's professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.
The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.
For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.
If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.
Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don't have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we're all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.
To respond to the "chickenhawk" label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a "chickenhawk" in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.
To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a "chickenhawk" is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal's strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, "Love it or leave it!" It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.
The "chickenhawk" rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn't, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity---activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: "Well if you like her so much why don't you marry her?"
If an able-bodied civilian can't support the war---or think we should persevere until we do win---without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can't say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.
Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.
There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America's professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.
The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.
For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Letter to the Editor, THE WEEKLY STANDARD
TO THE EDITOR:
David Gelernter’s eloquent piece on the scourge "hate crime" classifications represent in our legal system and upon our society gives voice to the sentiments I have long held. The one aspect I would add to his argument however, is the troubling precedent these laws create by criminalizing thought. By criminally defining a certain ideology or prejudice of thought in politically correct terms today, I fear we have begun the descent down a slippery slope of regulating or criminalizing other thought or opinion , such as the government sponsored history found in some European nations that Gerard Alexander documented in your publication a few months ago. As George Will stated in his column some months back, "Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech."
Any criminalization of thought or opinion is antithetical to democracy. It is the action itself that is a crime, and its moral reprehensibility is neither diminished nor accentuated by the motivation behind it. As Mr. Gelernter put it, "Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad."
David Gelernter’s eloquent piece on the scourge "hate crime" classifications represent in our legal system and upon our society gives voice to the sentiments I have long held. The one aspect I would add to his argument however, is the troubling precedent these laws create by criminalizing thought. By criminally defining a certain ideology or prejudice of thought in politically correct terms today, I fear we have begun the descent down a slippery slope of regulating or criminalizing other thought or opinion , such as the government sponsored history found in some European nations that Gerard Alexander documented in your publication a few months ago. As George Will stated in his column some months back, "Hate crimes are, in effect, thought crimes. Hate crime laws mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind of which the government particularly disapproves. Governments that feel free to stigmatize, indeed criminalize, certain political thoughts and attitudes will move on to regulating what expresses such thoughts and attitudes -- speech."
Any criminalization of thought or opinion is antithetical to democracy. It is the action itself that is a crime, and its moral reprehensibility is neither diminished nor accentuated by the motivation behind it. As Mr. Gelernter put it, "Murders done for love or any other reason are just as bad."
Monday, September 11, 2006
Win This War
As we remember those Americans lost on this day five years ago it is important to remember the best manner through which we can honor them: remaining steadfast in our effort to fight and win the war of which they were the first casualties.
As trying and painful a war it is to wage, and as much as we may all wish it to be over, we have no other choice left to us but to fight it as hard and as vigorously as it takes, for as long as it takes. The security and well-being of not only this generation, but of generations still unborn, depends upon our willingness to fight and defeat the enemies of democratic civilization today and into the future.
Our fathers and grandfathers accepted this responsibility and confronted these enemies when their age demanded it. Should ours be the generation to forsake their sacrifice and surrender that which they fought and died for on the sands of Iwo Jima and Normandy? Shall ours be the first generation to decline the duty to secure for our children the blessings of peace, security, and liberty?
The thousands of brave and heroic men and women now serving in the armed forces have answered this in the negative. They have and continue to answer the calling of their age. May those whom they serve and sacrifice for at home, and those who lead them more importantly, render the identical answer.
This war is a fight we can and will win, so long as we maintain the will to win it.
As trying and painful a war it is to wage, and as much as we may all wish it to be over, we have no other choice left to us but to fight it as hard and as vigorously as it takes, for as long as it takes. The security and well-being of not only this generation, but of generations still unborn, depends upon our willingness to fight and defeat the enemies of democratic civilization today and into the future.
Our fathers and grandfathers accepted this responsibility and confronted these enemies when their age demanded it. Should ours be the generation to forsake their sacrifice and surrender that which they fought and died for on the sands of Iwo Jima and Normandy? Shall ours be the first generation to decline the duty to secure for our children the blessings of peace, security, and liberty?
The thousands of brave and heroic men and women now serving in the armed forces have answered this in the negative. They have and continue to answer the calling of their age. May those whom they serve and sacrifice for at home, and those who lead them more importantly, render the identical answer.
This war is a fight we can and will win, so long as we maintain the will to win it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)