Owner: The Political Philosopher URL:www.politicalphilosopher.blogspot.com Join Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:38:00 -0500 Rating:0 Site Description: A blog devoted to rational, intelligent discussion of the political issues of the day. Excessive vitriol will not be tolerated. Personal attacks and insults will limited to those types of gibes common to enlightened 18th century discourse. Site statistics:Click here
The State and The Individual 2007-03-11 19:17:00 A New York Times editorial on March 10th details the recent decision by the United State
s Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to throw out a suit by Khaled el-Masri. El-Masri, a German citizen, claims he was arrested and sent to Afghanistan, where he was allegedly tortured. He brought suit against the CIA, charging violations of both the Constitution and international law. The judges of the Fourth Circuit however, ruled that the "very subject matter" of the case made it too secret to move forward.This decision brings about an interesting question concerning the relationship between the state and the individual. Depending on your philosophical background, you may have a different view of what constitutes the state, but I favor an atomistic view. The state, in this view, is merely a collection of individuals. There is a certain convenience in saying 'the state's interests' or 'the state's well-being' but this is a linguistic nicety, not a logical position. The state can have no Read more:Individual
McCain, Obama, and the word 'wasted' 2007-03-01 20:10:00 On Wednesday's edition of the Late Show with David Letterman, Arizona Republican and future presidential candidate John McCain
stated, "Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." McCain's use of the word 'wasted' recalled a similar statement from Illinois Democrat and declared presidential candidate Barack Obama
, who in a speech said, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." The uproar surrounding both comments was immediate. "Senator McCain should apologize immediately for his callous comments," opined Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman. After taking "heat" from both Democratic and Republican elements, Obama recanted by stating, "Their sacrifices are never wasted." McCain quickly offered his own mea culpa. "I sho
Response To 'Animal Advocate' 2007-03-21 02:35:00 Animal Advocate
wrote:Your question seems to regard the social contract. Does our social contract value protecting the majority (national security) over the minority (right to a fair trial) or vice versa? It seems throughout American history, protection of the majority has been preferred during times of war. No doubt this administration abuses the power that comes with the threat of war. But if we take your hypothetical state of four people as a representation of the current American public, one could argue that yes, indeed those two people would agree to imprison the third in the name of "national security." Or maybe the pendulum has finally drifted too far in that direction and protection of civil liberties has resurfaced. This amorphous entity called the state has been given the power to protect us from the state of nature, and rational people would disagree about whether that means protecting the many or protecting the few in anticipation of members of the many becoming members of Read more:Animal
, Response
The U.S. Attorney Firings, Oversight, and Biological Imperatives 2007-03-23 20:40:00 As James Madison famously said, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary," (Federalist #51). The founding father also said, in Federalist #10, that "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." And to think Madison wrote all this before the discovery of modern genetics and the advent of evolutionary biology.Why are those two disciplines relevant? Unless you are a creationist, you must acknowledge that mankind is the result of billions of years of evolution. And the singular quality of all those billions and billions and billions of creatures that stayed alive long enough to reproduce is selfishness--the biological imperative to wrest from the environment the resources necessary for survival. That imperative is still with us today to some degree. Certainly the selfish impulse varies from individual to individual (just as other traits vary genetically from individual to Read more:Attorney
, Attorney Firings
, Biological
, Firings
, Oversight
A New Constitutional Convention 2007-04-03 19:56:00 There was a call today for a new constitutional convention, but only on a state level. Citizens in Pennsylvania, distraught over a growing number of political scandals, are considering a constitutional convention to radically reshape the government. Interestingly, a former delegate to a previous constitutional convention in Pennsylvania (the state has had five), Bob Butera remarked that the convention could "bring people out of the woodwork who ordinarily wouldn't get their hands dirty in politics, and they will get involved in the making of history."The convention raises a larger and more interesting issue: why not a new constitutional convention for the United States as a whole? There is no indication that the founding fathers ever intended the original Constitution to be the be all and end all of American government. We've had two hundred and twenty years to see what works (separation of powers) and what might need some tweaking (the electoral college). Why not convene a new conve Read more:Convention
The 2nd Amendment 2007-04-18 05:20:00 The tragedy at Virginia Technical University has rekindled the debate over gun control in America, which in 2003 had 41 gun deaths for every 1,000,000 people (Brazil had 213, while England and Wales had .3). One obvious source of discussion is the wording of the amendment itself, which contains a number of phrases subject to interpretation.The text of the amendment, as originally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, reads:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."(Some versions of the amendment place commas after 'militia,' and 'arms.')Historically, the second amendment was the product of a compromise between the Federalists, proponents of a stronger centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a return to tyranny if the new political system gave too much power to the government. At the time, there was some debate among the framers of the Consti Read more:Amendment
Politicians and Reason 2007-04-26 08:51:00 Last week, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the war in Iraq "is lost." The backlash began immediately, with calls for Reid's resignation interspersed with depictions of Reid as a "propaganda minister for our enemies" and accusations of treason. The vitriol behind these statements makes one wonder what the role of reason is in political discourse. Do we as a nation believe that it is impossible for the United States to lose a war? If the answer to that question is yes, we must ask ourselves on what basis we have reached such an absurd conclusion. Given the fact that our leaders are not infallible and that we as a nation are not perfect, it is eminently reasonable to believe that there are going to be cases and situations in which the United States does not emerge victorious. We may debate whether Iraq is such a situation, but surely it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the United States could indeed lose a war. To believe otherwise consigns the U.S. to the nightm Read more:Reason
The Roots of Self-Deception 2007-05-02 19:28:00 On the anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, a common refrain has been to attack the administration's overly optimistic take on the Iraq war as delusional. The ability to hold beliefs in spite of facts and to convince oneself of the truth of things that are apparently untrue--self-deception--is unfortunately all too common in the human species. As Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post, Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist at Rutgers found that "four in five high school seniors believe they have exceptional leadership ability, and nearly every single professor in the country believes he or she is above average."Trivers holds that self-deception evolved in order to help an individual deceive others and to reduce the stresses of holding contradictory beliefs in one's mind. This may be why Bush and others can continue to assert that we are winning the war, despite the objections of Congress and the people. But it seems that our system of checks and balances Read more:Deception
Giuliani and Hagel: True Political Mavericks? 2007-05-14 21:23:00 John McCain gets all the press as a "maverick," but how has he set his own course in the presidential primaries? His views are in lockstep with the prevailing Republican ethos. But the true mavericks in the GOP seem to be Rudy Giuliani
and Chuck Hagel
.Giuliani bucked the prevailing political wisdom and decided to actually tell voters what he believes rather than equivocate. It will be interesting to see how voters react to such straight talk. This writer has always held that voters will respect a politician who tells the truth and doesn't try to be all things to all voters. The Giuliani campaign will be an interesting test of this theory.Nebraskan Senator Chuck Hagel took his independence a bit further, claiming that the Republican Party has been "hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." Hagel is pondering a run as an independent candidate with none other than Giuliani's successor, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a possible run Read more:Mavericks
Phantom Arguments 2007-05-22 12:03:00 The New York Times reported yesterday that the British military, after allowing homosexuals to serve in 2000, has encountered no complications with the policy. According to members of the Ministry of Defense, the biggest news of the policy is that "there is no news." There has been no evidence of harassment or loss of morale.Of course, this stands in stark contrast to the U.S. military, which continues its policy of forbidding gays to serve openly. Even though we are allegedly engaged in the fight for our civilization in the war on terror, homosexuals are apparently not welcome in such an important fight. But it appears that all the arguments against allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military are mere phantom arguments.Just as in the gay marriage debate, critics couch their opposition in the language of the horrible effects such a policy will have on the population at large and America. But these arguments lack empirical data to back them up. Let's put the policy in place, s Read more:Phantom
Public Financing of Elections 2007-06-04 17:08:00 Al Franken has a nice post about his work as a Senate candidate--namely, constant fund raising. That, along with Joe Biden's impassioned comments in Sunday's Democratic debates, underscores the need for public financing of elections. All presidential candidates should be required to meet a certain threshold of popular support, at which point they would qualify for federal funds. No more money from corporations or PAC's. Every dollar the candidates spend comes directly from the public. Non-cable channels (NBC, PBS, CBS, FOX, ABC) should be required to provide free air time to the candidates; after all, the people of this country own the airwaves, not corporations. The Supreme Court decision that equated campaign donations with free speech could not have been more wrongly reasoned. Corporations should not be entitled to more "free" speech by virtue of their immense wealth.Such a system would of course help rid campaigns of corporate dollars, but also encourage the candidates to spend Read more:Elections
, Financing
, Public
The More Things Change... 2007-06-13 12:43:00 The New York Times reports today that House Republicans are delaying passage of a $37.4 billion dollar appropriations bill due to concerns over...earmarks. Of course, under Republican control, the number and amount of earmarks increased exponentially and now the Democrats are trying to get theirs.Ralph Nader is fond of stating that there isn't a significant difference between the two major parties and this news supports that view. Unfortunately, the system at this point is designed to perpetuate two party dominance. And such a system only encourages corruption--if the people only have two choices, indignation at one party only puts the other, equally unethical, party in control.Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. For one, the media can give more time to third party candidates and independents. Why not sponsor a debate for such candidates? Additionally, public financing of elections could break the Democrat and Republican party monopoly. Numerous political parties have emerged Read more:Change
, Things Change
Plato and the Neocons 2007-06-25 15:28:00 Here's an interesting piece at Salon.com about the connection between Plato
and Leo Strauss, the founder of the neoconservative movement.
Politics As Usual 2007-06-21 14:53:00 According to the AP, John Edwards is looking to feature his "Two Americas" theme more prominently in his campaign. Despite the substantive issues Edwards is attempting to raise--the growing income disparity in America, a tax system that favors the rich, out of control credit card companies--the Republican party's response is a predictable non sequitur. The spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Dan Ronayne, had nothing more intelligent to say than "John Edwards likes to talk about the 'Two Americas' but he should add a third America — his. The America of $400 haircuts, mansions, hedge funds and tax loopholes is one uniquely his own."Notwithstanding the obvious factual inaccuracy of this statement (there are plenty of people in an America of lavish haircuts, mansions, hedge funds, and tax loopholes), the vapid nature of the response makes one shudder.It is puzzling that on issues that every American should be concerned with, the people do not demand better from their poli
The Hypocrisy Charge 2007-07-06 17:17:00 Pundits get a lot of mileage out of using charges of hypocrisy against politicians. John Edwards, for example, cannot be truly for the poor because of his haircuts. Al Gore isn't really for the environment if he runs up an exorbitant energy bill. A quick appeal to utilitarianism can put these charges to rest once and for all. Edwards could get all the four hundred dollar haircuts he wants if the sum total of his work for the poor offsets the damage (whatever that may be) of his extravagance. Same for Gore. Look at the harm his lifestyle does to the environment and compare it to the good. If the net effect of their actions is positive, then the hypocrisy charge is invalid--if on balance, their actions truly do help the constituencies and the causes they are for they are not being hypocritical, regardless of minor offenses. Read more:Hypocrisy
Is Homosexuality a Choice? 2007-08-10 17:12:00 At a debate focusing on issues important to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community, Gov. Bill Richardson responded to a question on the nature of homosexuality. When asked by Melissa Etheridge if homosexuality was biological in origin or a choice, Richardson stated, "It's a choice."Although he later retracted this statement (using the rather lame excuse that he misunderstood the question), it's puzzling to hear this line come from the mouth of Richardson. Opponents of gay rights often argue that individuals "chose" to be gay and therefore are not entitled to any special treatments. What is not addressed, though, is why some would make this choice?Surely, a person wouldn't chose to be gay just to be denied rights, subject to societal scorn, and victimized in hate crimes. And if the choice was simply a choice of sexual partners, why wouldn't an individual chose to enjoy the full rights and privileges of a heterosexual and indulge in whatever sexual escapades he Read more:Choice
, Homosexuality
The Electoral College and Democracy 2007-08-18 17:31:00 The sad truth is that America's founding fathers did not really intend for their new country to be a true democracy. Madison and the other founders feared the "tyranny of the majority" and worried that putting too much power into the hands of the uneducated masses would doom the country and the elites who created it. The only concession to the power of the common people in the Constitution was the direct election of members of the House of Representatives, which was considered an inferior body to the more respectable Senate and which elected its members every two years to allow for the changing passions of the electorate. No other part of the federal government was directly elected. Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures (of course, that practice was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913), the judiciary were appointed by the executive branch, and the president was elected not by the people but by the electoral college.The electoral college is a perversion of true democr Read more:College
What Do Voters Care About? 2008-04-17 20:27:00 I'm sure you saw the voter, who during last night's debate on ABC, asked why Obama did not wear a flag pin on his lapel. Why do voters care about such nonsense? I think it must be one of the following: (1) the voters are using 'cognitive shortcuts' to get a read on the candidates. Cognitive shortcuts allow voters to make inferences about candidates based on particular associations. Flag pin equals patriot. (2) the voters are truly interested in such information. I hope this isn't the case. But if so, such would be one of the flaws of democracy. (3) the voters, by and large, do not care about such issues, but the media accentuate and exacerbate these minor issues, thus making them into larger issues. I'm going with choice (3). Obviously, ABC had the ability to filter and select the question Read more:Voters
Follow Up: What Do Voters Want 2008-04-18 22:00:00 Check out this article, directly related to my previous post. Turns out the voter who asked about Obama's flag pin is concerned that Obama "takes everything too nonchalantly." According to this voter, Clinton has had too "struggle" for her gains, while Obama has had it easy. I'm not sure there is a tremendous difference in the backgrounds of Clinton and Obama. Both have had a ton of experiences that could reasonably qualify them as "elitists." But why should this matter? When have we, in history, elected a non-privileged individual to the presidency? We should dispense of this myth of the everyman president so we should focus on the issues. And, as I indicated in my earlier post, the media is culpable. Instead of running stories about how Obama or Kerry is an elite, why not feature some s Read more:Voters
Some Numbers to Think About 2008-04-23 16:14:00 A recent poll shows that 8% of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black man. Consider:-it's been 143 years, 4 months, and a few days since ratification of the thirteenth amendment, which prohibited slavery. Mississippi, by the way, ratified the amendment in 1995-it's been just under 54 years since the Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the doctrine of "separate but equal." As late as 1963, the governor of Alabama (George Wallace) was blocking blacks from entering a state university-whites make up 74% of the US population-in 2004, Bush captured 62 million votes to Kerry's 59 million, winning by 2.4 percentage points-recent polls have McCain at 45% and Obama at 46% in a hypothetical matchupGiven that it's been roughly seven generations since the end of slavery Read more:Numbers
A Grim Prognosis 2008-04-29 01:33:00 Two recent occurrences have me in a pessimistic mood. The first is the Sean Bell case. The second is the continuing furor surrounding the statements and attitudes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For those who don't know the deal, Sean Bell was killed by three undercover New York City police officers on his wedding day. Bell was at a strip club for his bachelor party, allegedly got involved in an altercation, and was gunned down by the officers who thought he was armed. Wright, meanwhile, has made a number of controversial statements, suggesting that god should damn America for its crimes and that the policies of the government were responsible for 9/11. What links these two events? For me, it is the wholly unbridgeable gulf between the people on either side of these issues. To some, the Bell slay
Congressional Oversight 2008-05-05 13:18:00 I consider myself fairly well read and informed about the issues of the day. But I missed this story last week and only caught it through the satirical website Ironic Times. It appears that John Conyers has threatened to subpoena members of Dick Cheney's office to testify about their deliberations over the torture issue. The lawyer for one of Cheney's aides, David Addington, claims that Congress lacks the authority to question members of the vice president's staff, in an apparent nod to Cheney's earlier argument that the vice president's office is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch. I guess that amidst all the stories about Obama's flag pin, Rev. Wright, Clinton's "testicular fortitude" and the gas tax, such a vital showdown over the very nature of Read more:Congressional
, Oversight
Cinco de Mayo 2008-05-05 13:05:00 Before you start downing Coronas with reckless abandon, check out this brief historical account of the meaning behind Cinco de Mayo. You may be surprised to see the links among this date, the new state of California, and the Civil War. Enjoy!
A Follow Up.... 2008-05-07 12:28:00 I came across a questionnaire published in the Boston Globe that details the candidates' positions on the limits of executive power. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all indicate that they believe the president must seek authorization (although not a declaration of war) from Congress. On another issue that I find most interesting, signing statements, McCain gives the most unequivocal answer: he "won't have signing" statements. Obama and Clinton both indicate a willingness to use them to "clarify" or "explain" laws, or do speak as to the Constitutionality of the law. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the power to do any of these things.
An Issue I'd Like to See Discussed.... 2008-05-06 15:37:00 Many important questions regarding government and policy are never broached during presidential campaigns. While we quibble over trivial issues, serious ones are ignored. For example, every time I hear mention of the "war" in Iraq or the "war" in Afghanistan or a potential "war" in Iran, I shudder. The founders expressly placed the power of declaring war in the hands of the members of Congress. Why? Because the members of Congress are accountable to the people every two years (or at least, all of the representatives and one third of the senators are). The founders thought the members of Congress would be less willing to send citizens to war if they had to answer to the electorate in short order. But since World War II, U.S. presidents have usurped this power. Now, we have a situation in wh
Does Power Corrupt? 2008-05-12 12:12:00 Here in New York City, we've dealt recently with political scandals on the city, state, and federal level. Christine Quinn, speaker of the city council, claimed ignorance of a "slush fund" created by members to direct taxpayer monies to pet projects. Eliot Spitzer, former governor, famously resigned after being caught using a high priced prostitution ring. And now Representative Vito Fosella has b Read more:Corrupt
Equal Protection 2008-05-15 12:42:00 In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a voter approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. As the justices rightly stated, "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Such a ruling strikes at one of the most troubling problems with governance for me. On the Read more:Equal
, Protection
Science, Religion, and the Public Sphere 2008-05-21 17:17:00 A new survey finds that 16% of science teachers in the US are creationists, and roughly 12.5% of science teachers teach intelligent design as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". This survey, mind you, is of public school teachers. I have no problem with a community of consenting adults deciding exactly how to live their lives--if a student wants Read more:Public
, Religion
, Science
, Sphere
Recommend Site To A Friend
