Bell & Bar

Strict Constitutionalism?

2011-01-29T14:14:00.008-05:00

Today Politico published an article that gave an overview of the recent conservative 'rediscovery' of the Constitution, detailing the many new arguments deployed by these groups against current liberal initiatives. While there are certainly fundamental -- and valid -- arguments to be had over the proper meaning and interpretation of our nation's founding document, many of the recent attacks launched by self-proclaimed "strict constitutionalists" (most notably Sarah Palin) are duplicitous and disturbing.

Some suggestions are simply senseless. One recent proposal in Virginia calls for an investigation into the feasibility of an alternate form of state currency -- just in case there is a "a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System." One would think that this was precluded by Article I, section 8, which specifically grants to Congress the power "[t]o coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Apparently this provision is somewhat more ambiguous to Republican Delegate Bob Marshall, though thankfully not to Republican Governor Bob McDonnell. Though Gov. McDonnell may be correct in asserting that "proposals like Marshall's arise out of fear about frightening levels of debt the federal government has taken on," deliberate attempts to infringe on constitutionally federal prerogatives are hardly the solution.

Far more problematic, however, are the arguments designed to cast "strict constitutionalism" as the only permissible method of interpretation of the Constitution. Because of the complexity of the document itself and the profundity of the issues involved, there are many reasonable approaches to constitutional interpretation that depend on many diverse factors. While both liberal and conservative theories of the Constitution have varying degrees of validity and applicability, however, "strict constitutionalism" is particularly dubious because it often coincides with ignorance or obfuscation of the actual Constitution. In order to be a "strict constitutionalist," it often seems as though one must change the Constitution so that the text can say what it already means. This hardly seems to make sense. Moreover, it is alarming in light of how many 'errors' "strict constitutionalists" have found in the Founding Fathers' handiwork. "Strict constitutionalism" thus appears to be defined by a limited reverence for the Constitution -- a respect that apparently extends only to the point at which the document's provisions depart from a preconceived conservative ideology. It is disingenuous (and downright illogical) for "strict constitutionalists" to claim that the Constitution must be changed in order to be harmonized with its own principles.

Two recent examples merit consideration. First, numerous strict constitutionalists are currently advocating for changes to provisions of the 14th Amendment. One of the more extreme approaches is found in Arizona, where several state legislators have taken it upon themselves to alter federal immigration laws. This is not to say, of course, that proposing or supporting an actual amendment to the Constitution is somehow improper; it was truly a stroke of genius on the part of the Founders to provide for thoughtful, deliberate modification of our governing compact. Moreover, the debate concerning immigration is important and evokes powerful feelings on both sides. It is certainly a debate that our country needs to have, and solutions must be found for the problems that everyone agrees exist. Circumventing or violating the Constitution for the sake of expediency, however, is clearly not an acceptable answer. Purporting to preserve the constitutional design by openly rejecting its mandates is even more perverse.

More perplexing is the strict constitutionalists' quest to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for popular election of United States Senators. Prior to the adoption of this amendment in 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures rather than the people themselves. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL), failed candidates Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, and conservative commentators such as Tony Blankley have all expressed support for the repeal of the 17th amendment. Their argument, apparently, is that popular election by the people of the state leads to the eventual corruption of senators by Washington elites. The causal connection between these events, however, is rarely made clearer than that (likely for good reason).

There are two problems with this stance, one empirical and one philosophical. First, that the electorate would be better off if state legislatures selected the state's senators presumably assumes that state legislators are never corrupt or subject to undue political influence. It hardly seems necessary to show that this assumption is absurd. While many -- even most -- state elected officials are dedicated public servants who discharge their duties with diligence and integrity, it is difficult to see how vesting politicians with the power to select other representatives is ever better insulation against corruption than submitting the decision to the people they will serve.

More fundamentally, the proposals to repeal the 17th Amendment are philosophically at odds with the values that strict constitutionalists purport to hold. For instance, it is unclear why the conservative rallying cry of "limited government" applies only to the federal government. It is an undeniably essential part of our national character to be suspicious of government action and jealous of our liberties, as such dispositions promote transparency, fairness, and liberty in a republic. Yet shouldn't this suspicion also extend to state governments, who often exercise even broader powers than Congress? After all, while conservative groups prefer to demonize Washington, our history is replete with instances in which the federal government was called upon to protect individual rights from infringement by the states (the clearest examples, of course, being the abolition of slavery and the eradication of Jim Crow laws).

Moreover, recent events in Alabama, Alaska, California, Illinois, and New York certainly call into question the wisdom of blindly trusting non-federal elected officials. Thomas Jefferson once declared that he "kn[ew] of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them." It is hard to see how revoking citizens' rights to directly elect their United States Senators would ensure better federal representation.

Our Constitution is both the shortest and oldest written constitution of any nation. The sweep of its brilliant -- and frankly beautiful -- language was meticulously crafted to build a flexible and evolving document, a charter to stand the test of time that would allow the nation to grow and prosper. As our society changes, new ideas and constitutional interpretations are sure to develop and take hold. As Thomas Jefferson stated,

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Yet "strict constitutionalism" is not an idea born of reasoned reflection, studious analysis, or pragmatic considerations. It does not expound a new view of the Constitution or attempt to rediscover forgotten truths; rather, it merely invokes the cultural power of our shared devotion to a national icon as support for a predetermined political agenda. The life of our Republic is dependent on a thriving national dialogue. It is vital for us to continue to have meaningful debates about the nature, scope, and substance of our Constitution. In these discussions, there is ample room for all political viewpoints, be they liberal, conservative, moderate, etc. In fact, all are necessary if we are to thrive as one nation. But as James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," observed, "[t]he citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society." As a self-governing nation, our duty to exercise that trust responsibly is profound indeed. Casually treating our Constitution as a mere tool for the sake of expediency or personal political gain derogates the obligation that we bear, as a society and as a country, to build a better Union.

Fervent Fringe

2010-10-22T14:27:00.004-04:00

Throughout this election cycle, media outlets have carried story after story describing the sharp rhetoric of fringe conservative groups and candidates. In that vein, Politico today highlights the striking statements of a Republican House candidate in Texas who advocated armed resistance in order to recover "our liberties and our freedoms." Although the candidate, Stephen Boden (who is, ironically, a pastor), had enough sense and political tact to qualify his statements by admitting that revolution is "not the first option," he did not retreat from his fundamental belief that "[o]ur nation was founded on violence."Nothing could be further from the truth.

Politico's article details how many of these extremists attempt to ground their militant philosophy in American Revolutionary ideals. As the article also points out, however, most of these purported linkages are nothing more than half-truths and misinterpretations of history. For instance, while the American Revolution was certainly the means by which this nation was emancipated from British rule, it is beyond ridiculous to view that undertaking as establishing an American predilection for violence. To do so ignores both the actual premises of the Revolution -- the 'self-evident truths' stated (one assumes for good reason) in the Declaration of Independence -- and the sustained efforts made by the Founding Fathers to avoid armed conflict with the British Empire. Diplomacy and debate were and are the proper weapons with which to oppose governmental policies with which one disagrees.

Ignoring the obvious paradox inherent in advocating the overthrow of the same government body for which one is campaigning, statements like Boden's are unfortunate because they obscure the beneficial functions of government in an effort to invoke self-serving populist anger. This is distasteful for several reasons. First, it is utterly unrealistic; however 'independent' Boden feels and wishes potential constituents to feel, the truth of the matter is that none are likely ever to forcibly oppose the federal government in a manner that bears any resemblance to a political revolution. Any attempted "overthrow" of the government would violate numerous laws and pose a very real threat to the safety of countless innocent people. Assuming Thomas Jefferson did personally believe that cyclic revolutions were good for the health of a nation (a rather simplistic interpretation that largely ignores the complex nuances of Jefferson's personal politics), that view is anachronistic in today's complex global society. Even if it were not, however, Jefferson's belief was unequivocally repudiated by the Founding Fathers' choice to establish a more stable government than he envisioned. The Constitution they crafted was clearly not "founded on violence."

More importantly, however, such threatening language is disingenuous and poisonous to public debate. Presumably, Boden and those like him -- as candidates for federal office -- would prefer to actually serve in Congress if elected. This would require that Congress remain an established government body. Moreover, it is quite likely that Boden would appreciate the support of his constituents while in office. Presumably, then, this call to violence is only temporary -- a hard observation to accept of violence is indeed fundamental to the American way of life. Boden's is an attempt to tap into disappointment, fear, and displeasure in the electorate, something almost every opposition candidate does in order to secure support for his or her message. The important difference, however, is that Boden and others who employ this sort of rhetoric go too far; they cast government and public servants as inherently and eternally evil, corrupt, and burdensome. This is not necessarily true and patently unfair.

It is often perilously easy for candidates to heap blame on incumbents and the system of government generally. To some extent, this represents the usual (if less than desirable) course of politics; such allegations are standard fare during election season. Rhetoric like that of Boden and other extremist candidates, however, is especially pernicious and goes beyond the pale. Thankfully, for this reason even members of his own party have quite rightly disavowed his assertions. Yet the cumulative effect of such statements during this election cycle has already begun to be seen: dramatic increases in the number of serious threats toward Members of Congress; drive-by shootings at district offices; and physical altercations.

With occurrences like these on the rise, it is more important than ever to remember that this is a self-governing nation and that government is essential to our way of life. As the spokesman for one GOP candidate stated in response to one such incident, "In this country we settle differences at the ballot box." Candidates act irresponsibly when they threaten secession or advise citizens to use their "Second Amendment remedies" against the government. The Founding Fathers, who actually fought wars to establish our current government and to secure the promise of liberty for posterity, would certainly look with disfavor on such callous calls for insurrection.

Unrestrained Originalism

2010-05-06T14:00:00.027-04:00

Today Politico carried an opinion piece by Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director for the Judicial Crisis Network (formerly known as the Judicial Confirmation Network). Severino harshly criticized President Obama for espousing an "image of originalism [that] is detached from reality" and went on to accuse the President of seeking to challenge the very constitutional structure of the government. Severino's harangue, however, is problematic on several counts.

As an initial matter, it is important to recognize the motivation behind Severino's critique. Though the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) purports to abhor the "politiciz[ation] [of] the enforcement of the law" and seeks to ensure only "the rule of law," it is rather plainly understood by most to be a conservative organization that actively seeks to influence the legal system through political channels. Of course, there is nothing wrong with political groups from all parts of the ideological spectrum voicing their opinions on the qualifications of judges; in fact, it is supremely healthy for citizens with diverse views to debate issues with respect to the operation and direction of the law. It is rather hypocritical, however, for the JCN to decry the politicization of the judiciary while simultaneously railing against the "radical liberal political agenda" of the Democratic Party and seeking to manipulate judicial elections. It is difficult to square these actions with the ostensibly neutral mission of the JCN to ensure a "fair and impartial judiciary." While conservative commentators are perfectly entitled to hold and promulgate their views, denying a partisan agenda where one clearly exists is simply disingenuous.

Severino's article labels as "clever backpedaling" President Obama's recent emphasis on judicial restraint, making the interesting allegation that his criticism of conservative judicial activism is tantamount to rejection of Marbury v. Madison. Though Severino makes several very valid observations about judicial activism among past "liberal jurists," her claim regarding Marbury is far too broad and ultimately incorrect. This is because the validity of her argument turns not on any fundamental constitutional principle, but almost exclusively on her own enthusiastic endorsement of originalism as the preferred mode of judicial interpretation -- particularly originalism as practiced by the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. Specifically, Severino asserts that,

"He [Obama] characterized the conservative reliance on the Founders’ original intent as leading to some sort of judicial power grab. The president equated originalist jurisprudence with an activism that ignores the will of Congress. His image of originalism is detached from reality. Even if true, his criticism would be useless, unless he is suggesting we reach back to 1803 and overturn Marbury v. Madison."

This argument makes several implicit assumptions that are highly questionable: (1) it equates judicial restraint with originalism; (2) it treats the originalist approach to judicial interpretation as the only correct method; and (3) even accepting arguendo that originalism is how the Court should interpret the Constitution, Severino's argument assumes that the originalism practiced by the Supreme Court accurately yields the "Founders' original intent." These assumptions are suspect on several grounds.

First, it is hardly clear that originalism itself is an adequate check on judicial activism. Though theoretical adherence to the intentions of the Founders would certainly circumscribe the power and practice of the Court, exactly what the Framers actually intended is highly controversial. Leaving aside the fact that the Framers themselves hotly debated how the Government should be structured and continually disagreed on many crucial issues, there is simply no purely objective way in which to ascertain such a uniform intent even if it could clearly be shown to exist.

Most cases in which the Framers' intent is important are those in which constitutional provisions are ambiguous or altogether silent. In such situations, Justices seeking 'original intent' have no recourse but to look to other historical materials such as publications, records, notes, memoirs, and prior legal cases. Even today, countless eminent historians, political scientists, and jurists continue to mine these sources for new insights and one would be hard-pressed to articulate conclusions on which they all agree. To be sure, attempting to learn what history and our traditions have to teach us is an invaluable tool, but to assume that a Supreme Court Justice is somehow more able than generations of scholars to discover, discern, and distill such an elusive object as the subjective general intent of a deliberative body that existed over 250 years ago is questionable to say the least.

More to the point, it is highly unlikely that Justices engaging in such a nuanced investigation -- whether they be liberal or conservative -- can discard personal biases or preconceptions to the extent required to ensure judicial restraint. This is one reason why many scholars have taken issue with the originalist approach and why it remains a topic of controversy in legal scholarship today. Purely because it is controversial does mean that originalism as a theory is unsound, but it does call into question its veneration as a panacea for all constitutional ills. Originalism as a theory is actually quite young, emerging in its modern form during the 1980's, and it can give rise to very real logical, doctrinal, and social complications. Thus, Severino's elision of valid objections to the theory -- and her unquestioning adoption of originalism as the solution to judicial activism -- severely undermines her argument.

Finally, even if it were the best way to effectively balance power between the branches of the federal government, it is hardly clear that the current Justices of the Supreme Court practice pure originalism. Few modern observers of the Court can honestly maintain that personal politics have no impact on how individual Justices (of all political leanings) rule. Because every case that comes before the Court is heard precisely because the law is ambiguous, decisions in controversial cases are often guided by other considerations such as morality, public policy, equity, etc. Whether or not one believes that this is proper is irrelevant -- the point here is that the influence of politics and personal beliefs on the jurisprudence of the Court can be readily observed. This calls into question Severino's apparent belief that the Court currently methodically and mechanistically applies the tenets of originalism.

Severino's criticism of President Obama demonstrates that the JCN embraces a conservative political agenda that values and espouses originalism. Such a position certainly has a place in the national debate. Her hyperbolic claims about overruling the "Marshall court of 1803," however, are wrong. While the Supreme Court is certainly empowered and obligated to act as a check on both Congress and the President, the Legislature and the Executive were designed to be a check on the Judiciary as well. The notion of the separation of powers presupposes individual powers to separate, and deference to the will of the legislature is emphatically not the same as saying that the Court should act as a "rubber stamp." Rather, it articulates the belief that the powers accorded to Congress in Article I are coequal with those vested in the Court by Article III and as such are deserving of respect and judicial deference when within the scope defined by the Constitution. This view is hardly unique to President Obama.

Moreover, even if one assumes that Severino's conception of the system of checks and balances is correct, it simply does not follow that originalism is the only -- or even the best -- way to achieve that scheme. It is actually quite ironic that Severino displays such respect for Chief Justice Marshall and his decision in Marbury. After all, in another of his most famous cases, McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall himself proclaimed that ours is a "Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs" -- not quite an originalist sentiment.

War on Education

2010-03-16T15:59:00.014-04:00

A disturbing report concerning education policy in Texas cautions that the national textbook market may soon be flooded with products that advocate rather than educate. The Lone Star State recently approved changes to social studies, economics, and history textbooks that would drastically alter what the next generation of students learn. While the School Board has yet to finalize the changes (there is a required period of public comment), the initial 10-5 vote for approval suggests that acceptance is all but assured. Perhaps unintuitively, policy decisions concerning education in Texas -- ostensibly a local issue -- spawn potentially national ramifications because "the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation's textbook market." Thus, it is important to take notice of how the materials for the nation's students might be altered.

The changes proposed by the Texas School Board have generated so much consternation because they would require that educational materials include questionable elements that impose an admittedly conservative gloss on their contents. Neither end of the political spectrum denies the somewhat flagrant manipulation at issue. While critical members of the School Board decry the move as an attempt to promote an extremist ideology, the conservative majority maintains that "academia is skewed too far to the left" and that "balance" must be restored. In all fairness, this is not an argument that should be dismissed out of hand. Education is a dynamic and vital part of our national culture and it should represent many different viewpoints fairly and accurately. An educational system that advocates only liberal ideas is as flawed and undesirable as one that stresses conservative beliefs, and it is frankly questionable to expect that liberal adherents are the best proponents of conservative aims. Tensions between political ideals and contested values are built into the American system in countless areas precisely so that oppositional ideologies will be respected and adequately represented. As such, a claim of imbalance or bias deserves -- indeed demands -- conscientious examination.

The conservative position is misleading, however, because it willfully ignores the essential natures of opposing educational philosophies -- undermining neutrality while purporting to achieve balance. Clearly, the goal of any educational system should be to produce intelligent, well-equipped students who possess the knowledge and abilities required for them to achieve success and become valuable citizens. The fundamental question in a democratic and deeply diverse society is how to most effectively and fairly achieve this goal. In point of fact, conservative critics who lament that "academia" generally embraces liberal ideals more readily could be correct. There is some evidence that universities and other centers of learning sometimes demonstrate left-leaning tendencies. There are several reasons, however, why the converse -- or even an increased focus on conservative values in the name of compensation -- is undesirable if one is to achieve legitimate educational goals.

The most salient argument is that a liberal educational philosophy generally values and seeks to expound as many differing viewpoints as possible while a conservative philosophy by definition must reject some ideas in order to preserve what are designated as vital principles. It is important to recognize that this observation is judgment neutral -- it says nothing about the actual value of the principles at issue or the importance of teaching those ideals to students. A conservative philosophy may, in fact, emphasize perfectly laudable concepts but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that a perspective focusing on conservation of values and beliefs is in tension with an appreciation for the inclusion of opposing ideas. One cannot conserve one way of thinking while expanding and incorporating novel concepts. The conservative model may be appropriate for some instances; for example, in a homogeneous society where core principles are universally shared and consistently rearticulated. It is woefully inadequate, however, for a fast-paced, dynamic, and heterogeneous nation composed of strikingly diverse citizens who hold infinitely varied views on almost every subject. Survival and success in such an environment is contingent on an ability to appreciate and understand beliefs that differ from one's own -- skills that are not gleaned from educational materials delimited by idiosyncratic perspectives.

Support for this analysis can be found in a brief review of several of the changes tentatively approved by the Texas School Board:

I. "A greater emphasis on the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."

This directive would require more or better converage of conservative and antifeminist activisit Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, Newt Gingrich, etc. The School Board is correct that such information should be included in educational materials and given the appropriate weight. It is, after all, important that historical changes in political and social culture be accurately documented, preserved, and taught. "Greater emphasis" may be actually be required if the information from this period is not presented appropriately relative to other material. This, however, does not appear to be the case.

While pleasing to conservative persons, the 20-year span at issue is hardly an historical moment that inherently transcends other social and temporal periods. This is not the same as saying that important achievements were not made or that so-called 'liberal' eras should receive better treatment -- it is just as important to emphasize past conservative periods and to compare one brand of conservatism to another. The overall point is that students must learn to contrast and form their own conclusions, because both private and civic life will require that they do so. Designating such a brief time as especially important because some the prevailing political ideology compelling is simply misleading and irresponsible.

II. "Changes in specific terminology."

This suggestion would alter certain terms in order to introduce new connotations for traditional ideas. Examples include changing American "imperialism" to "expansionism," "capitalism" to "the free market," and "stressing favorable depictions of America's economic superiority across the board." Not only are these inventive alterations in many cases less precise, they are also patently unnecessary to serve any purpose other than blatant political manipulation. It is frankly wrong to implicitly deny points in history where American actions are accurately described by negative terminology -- especially when such labels are freely applied to similar actions by other countries. Without acknowledgment of its own errors no nation can learn, improve, and move forward.

Similarly, it is not the place of economics textbooks to extol the virtues of the American system over those of competing designs. It may be that the American economic system is superior and any commentator is certainly free to say so in articles, books, papers, blogs, etc. Textbooks, however, should strive to present information objectively and should never restrict information in an attempt to convey a "favorable impression." Obscuring legitimate criticisms of the American capitalist system is dishonest and perhaps even pointless. After all, if it truly is superior then presumably the benefits of capitalism will vastly outweigh the costs, leading students to reach the same desired conclusion without any need for deception.

III. Revision of the the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps the most striking revision offering by the Texas School Board is the diminution of the importance of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, as an important intellectual force behind the Revolution. Instead, textbooks would emphasize thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone. While these individuals certainly deserve consideration as important giants in philosophical and legal thought, it is hard not to take notice of the fact that preference is given to religious philosophers while more secular theorists (such as Jefferson, who was a Deist) are ignored. There are clear indications that the School Board is seeking to emphasize the "strict Christian beliefs" that guided the foundation of the country -- an assertion that serves a baldly political and religious purpose, takes great liberties with academic accuracy, and sharply divorces fact from historical context.

Moreover, that the aim of education should be restricted to secular instruction is too established to be questioned. The ultimate goal is not and cannot be religious or spiritual education; such tutelage is rightly reserved to the individual student's religious community (or in the case of a parochial school, special classes and periods that explicitly focus on religious principles). Attempting to mold students in a specific religious image violates the autonomy and rights of nearly all involved, and seeking to accomplish this end through the rewriting of textbooks and history is deplorable.

Education is an important building block of our society; it helps us to grow, improve, progress, and survive as a nation -- and as a people. Without honest, challenging educational programs, the future of any country is bleak. The prevailing international marketplace of competition and ideas demands the best and brightest and the United States certainly has the raw talent to satisfy this call. An honest education, however, usually means challenging personal views and studying a number of other possibly conflicting perspectives. This frankly would not be offered in an educational system slanted toward conservative, capitalist, Christian views -- regardless of how appealing one might find them. Self-imposed myopia and stubborn insistence on a narrow swath of personal beliefs simply is not good enough for our nation's children.

Citizens Are United

2010-02-17T09:01:00.004-05:00

The Washington Post reports today that an overwhelming majority of the public are vehemently opposed to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Interestingly, this opposition appears to cut across partisan, economic, and cultural lines, as the Post notes that "[T]he poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers."

The decision has continued to spark disagreement and controversy since it was announced, with supporters hailing it as a victory for free speech and opponents calling for a constitutional amendment to correct what they see as a grave error. While talk of the "Senator from Wal-Mart" and the "Congressman from Bank of America" is certainly hyperbolic, the decision does raise very serious questions about the role that corporations should play in the national political sphere. These concerns are all the more salient today as the U.S. economy continues to stumble through a recovery -- a situation that, ironically, was triggered by irresponsible corporate actors who have already proven their talent for evading regulation.

While there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, the two most commonly offered in defense of the Citizens United are somewhat misleading. First, advocates for corporations lament that prior campaign finance restrictions limited their powers of "speech" far more stringently than other groups. This argument ignores the fact that numerous alternative outlets have always been available to corporations -- even under the stricter regulations that were struck down by the Court. For instance, corporations could easily sidestep restrictions by making contributions through a PAC, advertising outside of the limited blackout period, or simply switching to another type of media. More fundamentally, the argument that businesses should be accorded identical opportunities as other groups obscures the very real differences that distinguish these entities. As mentioned in a previous post,

"Non-profit organizations ... rely on a particular constituency composed of individuals with like-minded views. It is easier to trace the path of their contributions to individual citizens and to impute the purpose of political expression to these donors. [...] It is arguably more difficult to discern this important connection when it comes to corporations, which derive their spending power from profits and effective business models rather than direct contributions from individuals who share similar views."

Additionally,

"While the Court has ruled in the past that corporations are (for all intents and purposes) to be endowed with many of the rights and privileges of actual citizens, it seems problematic to offer them more flexibility in the area of politics. One could argue, for instance, that the executives, stock holders, employees, etc. who make up the corporation can simply exercise their rights to free speech individually or through non-profit organizations with which they agree. [...] Insulated from public opinion by practice and profit, those at the helms of large corporations would likely acquire greater influence in the political process -- a notion that is hard to reconcile with the idea of democratic self-governance by the people."

The second claim, even more prevalent than the first, is that this decision is really a boon to small corporations such as "every incorporated mom-and-pop falafel joint, local firefighters’ union, and environmental group" or, even more humorously, "Susie's Flower Shop." This argument is disingenuous because it completely ignores the budgetary realities that most small corporations encounter. It is much more likely -- especially in the midst of a difficult economic recovery -- that most "mom-and-pop" establishments will have neither the inclination nor the disposable income to effectively lobby the electorate. It is by no means certain that struggling small business owners will appropriate capital from other areas of their business to invest in political research, polling, or advertisements. In fact, it seems much more likely that such an undertaking will become the norm only for much larger businesses with deeper pockets.

It is an impermissible stretch of the truth to assert that small, locally owned and operated corporations will profit from this decision in the same way as, for example, Exxon Mobil (valued last year at approximately $375 billion). Even should small businesses wish to exercise their newfound clout, it can hardly be maintained that their influence would even come close to having the same effect as that of a massive conglomerate. Massive corporations, then, are a different story; they stand to gain much from Citizens United. Viewed in this light, the case hailed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as a "1st Amendment triumph" could more accurately be described as a victory for large corporate entities -- and the politicians they support.

Gross Inequality

2009-12-02T17:39:00.018-05:00

Today the New York State Senate killed a measure to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. In a vote of 38-24, the state senate rejected a proposal that would have granted equality to a large population within New York and dashed the hopes of many loving couples. This bill, already passed twice by the Assembly, is dead for at least this year but is expected to brought forward again in the future.

Predictably, the main line of attack against granting same-sex marriage was religious in nature. Since no reputable medical, psychological, or economic organization has adduced any reasons why same-sex marriage should not be granted, this is perhaps the only available argument. As such, it bears scrutiny in the context of today's vote.

The opposition to the measure was led by Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentacostal minister from New York City. In his opening remarks, Diaz implored legislators to "remember your values -- remember you stand for traditional values, family values, moral values." Such misplaced rhetoric is truly offensive and reveals Ruben's profound incapacity to understand the effects of his actions on the gay community. Nothing about same-sex marriage threatens family or morality. Thus, Ruben's comments are also disappointing because they continue his tragic trend of leveling baseless accusations and showing a distinct lack of compassion toward an minority seeking equal treatment. Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, also commented, saying, “While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman.”

This unfortunate myopia demonstrates the duplicitous attempts of religious leaders to cast themselves as both opponents of gay marriage and as egalitarian defenders of the downtrodden. In reality, however, the church's continuing crusade against the gay community is better understood as clear and unequivocal discrimination. That the church believes it has strong reasons for its stance only offers an explanation for its position -- it does not change the fact the real effect of its actions is to derogate and subordinate gay people. The definition of discriminate is "to make an adverse distinction with regard to" or "to distinguish unfavourably from others." Declaring that one group is not entitled to the same rights as another -- or, for that matter, arguing that their lifestyle is inherently worthy of condemnation -- is clearly within this definition. For religious leaders to argue to the contrary is unambiguously and categorically false.

Rather, a more appropriate analysis would be to say that religious leaders believe that they have the right to discriminate -- a right that they claim is granted to them by their religious traditions (e.g. the Bible, the Quoran, etc.). The problem with this, of course, is that the history and Constitution of this nation overwhelmingly reject the notion that any group possesses some natural right to discriminate against another. The mandate of equality under the law is not modified or rescinded simply because the discussion turns to religion -- a fact that religious leaders themselves are quick to trumpet whenever their interests are threatened. When Congress recently passed legislation classifying violence related on sexual orientation as hate crimes, religious leaders voiced their displeasure over the mere possibility that their freedom of speech might be infringed.

Contrary to the claims of many religious leaders, the laws of the United States are not rooted in Christianity -- or, in fact, in any other particular religion. That religious dogma and civil laws sometimes possess similarities cannot be doubted, but this is more attributable to the historical evolution of moral and ethical thought rather than some inherent interdependence. The intellectual underpinnings of law such as theories of ethics, morality, and justice, often grew out of religious musings. This common origin, however, by no means gives religion a monopoly on moral or legal thought. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that "to permit [bigamy based on a religious duty] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Such a notion was firmly rejected by the court as inconsistent with the freedom and liberties granted to people of this nation, and it is equally inappropriate to maintain that religious beliefs should become the law of the land.

One should also hesitate to apply religious laws because -- even among the religious -- there is severe disagreement about everything from the correct teachings to the proper principles. People around the world subscribe to many different systems; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are but a few of the major faiths found throughout the globe. From Animists to Zoroastrians, each has different beliefs and values which are often unique. Even within each particular sect there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. State Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, stated, “When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out." His beliefs are obviously quite different from those of many Christian fundamentalists -- even though they are based on the same compilation of writings and teachings. In fact, there are dozens of different translations of the Bible in the English language alone. Given the practice of carefully parsing the text of religious documents, even small differences in each version are likely have significant consequences. The diversity within the broad umbrella of religion is nothing short of astounding.

Yet many religious leaders maintain that the religious rules to which they adhere are the one true set of laws that should prevail. For instance, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who traveled to Albany before the vote on same-sex marriage, admonished the State Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and [the Senators] have to reckon with his rules and his law.” When one realizes that such declarations are almost always followed by religious directives (Rabbi Weiss did not just leave and the legislators decide for themselves what the laws of the "Almighty" said to do), comments of this sort are reduced to little more that religious threats -- thinly veiled attempts to coerce democratically elected leaders into opposing propositions that do not conform with religious teachings.

But why is this a problem? Much of religion, after all, is concerned with commonly held values such as love, kindness, honesty, and reciprocity. Viewed in that light, it might seem beneficial to allow religion to shape our laws. Serious complications arise, however, because human beings are -- as recognized by most religions themselves -- imperfect. Human beings (a category that includes religious leaders) are susceptible to mistake, coercion, bigotry and a long list of other vices. Much of our history has been spent overcoming these shortfalls, a task that is nowhere near finished. Because the people who write, read, teach, and lead in religious circles are human, they are subject to the same fallibility as all other people.

Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to confuse the allegedly pure teachings of religion with the very human aspect -- granting some religious leaders broad powers that they are neither worthy nor capable of wielding. This situation has been seen throughout history, and has led to countless atrocities being committed in the name of the noblest purposes; an embarrassingly short summary includes the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, persecution of scientists, slavery, male chauvinism, the Salem witch trails, genocide, and opposition to interracial marriage.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that recognized the right to marriage, even the trial judge who convicted the Lovings stated that, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Furthermore, many argued that interracial unions were "evil" and "unnatural." This line of thinking has been born again today in the debate over same-sex marriage. More recently, the Pope claimed that condoms would actually exacerbate the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa -- a shockingly irresponsible move that quite literally puts thousands of lives at risk and promotes the spread of a devastating disease.

None of this is to say that religion is inherently bad -- it most certainly is not. A humble, honest, and reverential search for spiritual or divine meaning can certainly enrich the life of the seeker (and perhaps the lives of others) in myriad ways. Yet while religion certainly has many valuable aspects, ignoring its shortcomings and denying that commonplace religious doctrine can be wrong or misinterpreted can also be extremely harmful. We should bear in mind the dangers of refusing to think about religion. Tradition and custom are powerful forces in society, and they have helped us to maintain many practices which are beneficial. They have also, however, been the historical vehicle through which to oppress minorities. Our Founding Fathers built a country consecrated to liberty, not religion, and we would do well to observe the safeguards that they put in place -- measures meant to guard against the unfair concentration of power and to prevent the formation of a monarchy, autocracy, or theocracy.

The Rule of Law

2009-11-17T14:37:00.004-05:00

Today Governor David Paterson criticized the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 hijackers in Manhattan federal court. The decision, which was announced on Friday by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, has ignited a fierce debate that questions the appropriate role of the law in in the struggle against terrorism -- and in American society itself.

Conservatives and Republican politicians have derided the move as a political maneuver that threatens national security and increases the possibility that the accused terrorists will go free. Most Democrats and supporters drawn from the ranks of organizations such as the ACLU have praised the decision as a triumph for the rule of law and American justice. The families of victims of the 9/11 tragedy have expressed conflicting opinions, with some welcoming and others disparaging the plan to try the detainees in New York. Despite the contentious debate, all of the vociferous parties in this debate agree on many central issues; no one has expressed serious doubts about the culpability of the detainees, nor has anyone suggested that they should not be made to answer for their crimes. Both sides also acknowledge that the alternative (trying the detainees in military commissions) affords the accused individuals fewer rights and procedural protections.

Interestingly, the controversy surrounding AG Holder's decision does not seem to stem from concerns about security or the threat of terrorist attack. While some conservatives have suggested that civilian trials will increase the threat to the nation, a recent poll showed that, though most Americans did opt for trials by military commissions, a majority felt that the detainees should still be brought to the United States. Statements like those of Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), which allege that bringing the accused terrorists to Manhattan raises the risk of further attacks, thus seem to be off-target with respect to the concerns of the American public. Moreover, there is little evidence to support such claims. While this trial has certainly caught the attention of the media, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) has pointed out that numerous terrorism suspects have already been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts -- many under the Bush Administration.

The debate actually appears to grow out of a fundamental disagreement over the very propriety of determining the detainees' guilt in American courts. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has claimed that the "choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists" and that the government is "giv[ing] the terrorists a better choice than [it's] giving the public," but the justification for these statements is not exactly clear. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has argued, “Any suggestion that [Manhattan's] prosecutors and law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.” It seems safe to say that many Americans would agree -- that the prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is more than capable of delivering justice for the victims, their families, and the nation as a whole. Why, then, are many so resistant to the decision to try the detainees in American courts?

Perhaps the animus of the opposition is best captured in the words of Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). Senator Gregg has called the detainees "evil people," arguing that "they represent a cause which wants to destroy this nation. [. . .] There's no reason we should have them in the criminal justice system." This sentiment is in fact quite shocking when one considers the rich history and pedigree of the American legal system. Our Constitution promotes the rule of law by guaranteeing essential rights that protect people from wanton discrimination, persecution, and tyranny. The document itself was born from the struggles of an oppressed and disenfranchised group who found the courage and fortitude to build a government that would breathe life into moral ideals such as liberty and freedom, creating a nation that was "of the people, by the people, for the people." The rule of law, however, is meaningless if not applied equally.

The United States has learned -- and continues to learn -- from painful civil rights struggles that liberty and equality cannot be separated. From the persecution of Native Americans to the institution of slavery to the fight for gay rights, our nation is faced with grim reminders and difficult challenges that highlight the importance of equality under the law. This principle is so entrenched in our history, in our identity, and in our jurisprudence that it cannot and should not be suspended even for the most detestable of human beings. The military commissions begun by the Bush Administration ignore many of the rules that most Americans hold inviolate -- protections that have grown out of centuries of thoughtful legal evolution. They are not to be dismissed lightly (if at all), and it is exceedingly dangerous to allow them to be rescinded by the government simply because the accused is especially despised.

The principles and protections afforded by American courts are envied and emulated around the world because they confer upon the accused the dignity and respect that are inseparable from the human condition. The American legal system embraces the concept (in principle if not always in practice) that every individual is entitled to just treatment. The persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks are indeed reprehensible individuals, but that does not mean that they should be placed in a special category or denied equal justice under the law. The ideals enshrined in the Constitution are not intended only as protections for the accused, but for society as well. After all, using hate as a justification to abandon the commitment to the pursuit of justice leaves only revenge as a remedy -- a course that simply moves us closer to our adversaries.

Fallen Heroes

2009-11-05T22:51:00.005-05:00

My sincerest condolences go out to the friends and families of the soldiers from Fort Hood. It is my solemn hope that they will soon find both answers and closure. May the victims of this terrible tragedy rest in peace.

Photo Source: http://www.nytimes.com

Reading, Writing, Religion?

2009-10-28T13:57:00.012-04:00

Today the Orange County Register carried an update to an ongoing legal battle over comments concerning religion that were made by a public school teacher. Apparently Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC-Irvine School of Law and a famous constitutional scholar, will be joining the defense team for James Corbett, the teacher who recently lost his case on summary judgment. At issue is a comment that Corbett made concerning creationism, namely that it was "religious, superstitious nonsense." Both Corbett and Chad Farnan, the student who brought the suit, have appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The case invokes many of the standard arguments that one would expect to see in an issue of this type -- alleged infringement of the establishment clause, offense to the freedom of religion, and transcendance of the permissible bounds of free speech. Predictably, the plaintiff has asserted that Corbett's condemnation of creationism violates the right of students to be free from government hostility toward religion. The basic assumption of the plaintiff is, as Farnan's mother puts it, that "any student should be able to sit in the classroom without having their beliefs attacked." This, of course, is true. No student should ever feel unjustly persecuted for beliefs that he or she holds, and it is well established that the Constitution offers significant protections in this area. What is not clear from the case (or in general) is where one should draw the line between derogating and merely challenging beliefs.

The distinction is important. Our constitutional rights are vital to the preservation of a free society, yet without challenging students to think critically about the world and their own ideology education is little more than a waste of time and resources. A proper balance must be found between these two concerns. On one hand, too much deference to religious beliefs effectively violates the rights of others to free expression and catastrophically inhibits the ability of society to meaningfully engage in constructive discourse. Conversely, too little emphasis on preserving the right of individuals to be free from persecution predicated on their beliefs undermines the notions of liberty and equality -- the foundations of our democratic society. It is very unlikely that this tension can be easily resolved, and it is no wonder that legislatures, courts, and individuals continue to struggle with this question.

Balancing the public interest in the free exchange of ideas against the right of individuals to be free from governmental oppression is difficult, but a genuine balance must be found. Forbidding a teacher from advancing a negative view of creationism is dangerous, because it seems to provide too much deference to religious rights. Why, for instance, should Corbett be prohibited from describing creationism as "superstitious" when (as a history teacher) he is perfectly free to characterize the beliefs of ancient civilizations in the same manner? It is certainly doubtful that such indignant objections would be raised were Corbett to express skepticism that the world was created by the Titans of Greek mythology. Creationism is not distinguished by the presence of convincing proof -- indeed it cannot be proven. The only apparent distinction is that creationism is a Judeo-Christian account of the origin of the world rather than a Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, or Aztec explanation. Why does belief in that particular idea trigger constitutional protection?

While it is vital that constitutional rights be vindicated, it is also important to remember that, in a democratic society, personal religious tenets do not take precedence over our shared political and philosophical ideals. Most religious figures will argue that religion coexists with these values because the fundamental concepts are the same. This is not a completely truthful response, however. Religion does tolerate concepts that are compatible with its dogma, but this is the not the same as saying that democratic values and religious values are the same. After all, it cannot honestly be said that the equality in religion and equality in society are the same. For example, in both Christianity and Islam women occupy distinctly different and unequal doctrinal places -- possessing different rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Without passing judgment on those determinations in the religious sphere, it is not difficult to say that such an overt disparity in everyday United States culture would be considered intolerable.

Obviously there are boundaries that, when crossed, indicate unfair treatment of those with a specific set of beliefs. Other alleged statements by Corbett, such as "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool," would certainly seem to fall into this category. This statement goes beyond expressing doubt or inviting students to critically examine an idea; it is unnecessarily acerbic and strongly condemns a system that is likely to be intimately tied to valued beliefs and experiences. It is difficult to see, however, how describing creationism as religious superstition or even nonsensical rises to this level of offense. If conservatives and religious fundamentalists are permitted to cast aspersions on the theory of evolution, why cannot the opposition respond in kind?

Another example is provided by the very group representing Farnan in his suit. The Advocates for Faith and Freedom also argue strenuously against granting equal rights to gay men and women. This position is based on the religious beliefs of the group regarding gender and sexuality, and it is consonant with their particular, strictly tailored, narrow definition of equality. This group is contesting the validity of according a fundamental right to an entire group of people. Similar organizations even contest measures that protect gay men and women against violence and murder on the groups that it might hinder religious speech. Were it not so hypocritical, the fact that Advocates resents such a passive challenge would be downright comical.

Though Farnan's mother stated that her son "had to leave a class that could have helped him get into college," it is unclear what necessitated such drastic action. Corbett's comment (at least the one concerning creationism, which is the current focus of litigation) is not nearly so offensive as to amount to religious persecution. Rather, it is the frank -- though perhaps blunt -- appraisal of a religious theory that is supported by no substantive proof. Discrimination of any sort is unacceptable, but an oversensitivity to legitimate challenges to a system of belief destroys free expression and renders any education meaningless.

Victimized (Twice)

2009-10-14T17:12:00.006-04:00

The Chicago Tribune and the ABA Journal carried a disturbing story from Illinois today. Kathy Cleaves-Milan and her 9 year old daughter were apparently evicted from their apartment by Aimco, the company that owns and operates her Elmhurst housing complex. According to a company spokesperson, the reasons for their eviction were the violation of a "zero-tolerance" policy toward criminal activity in the housing community and questions about Cleaves-Milan's ability to make her rent payments.

There is much more to this story, however. The "criminal activity" that spawned the eviction was in fact a domestic violence incident in which Cleaves-Milan's armed husband threatened to kill her. She sought and obtained an order of protection against him, but this action was unexpectedly turned against her when Aimco used it as a basis for her eviction -- even going so far as to include a copy of the protection order "stapled to the eviction notice that terminated her lease." The concern about her inability to pay rent also stemmed from this incident. The company questioned whether Cleaves-Milan had sufficient income without the assistance of her husband, a capacity she asserts she could easily prove. The article goes on to note that, unlike in other states that have legislation protecting victims of domestic abuse, such deplorable business practice is permissible in Illinois until a new amendment to the Human Rights Act takes effect in 2010. With help from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and Reed Smith, Cleaves-Milan has filed suit over the eviction claiming sex discrimination.

It is not difficult to see why the actions by Aimco are cause for alarm. The intent of the policy -- to keep residents safe by quickly weeding out problem tenants -- is not itself problematic; rather, it is the inexplicable application of the policy in this case that raises serious issues. Cleaves-Milan herself committed no violation and the situation was completely beyond her control. Moreover, the order of protection had already obviated the need to enforce the policy as the offending party could not return to the premises.

Yet perhaps the most disconcerting element of this case is the perverse message that the company's actions send to victims of crimes. First, by indiscriminately evicting tenants without regard to whether they were the victim or the perpetrator, the company eliminates the tenants' incentive to notify the authorities when they are in danger or when a crime has been committed. As Sandra Park of the ACLU Women's Rights Project noted, "It forces women into a situation where they have to choose between reaching out for safety or staying in their homes."

This policy also severely limits the resources available to victims of domestic violence at precisely the point when they need the most assistance. Victims of crimes need access to proper legal channels, support to enable them to seek help, and often therapy and other services to help them to recover from the trauma of the experience. These resources are especially important in cases of domestic violence, where the offender is usually a person the victim had known and trusted. The policy enforced by Aimco achieves the opposite result; it severely limits the options available to victims and may force them to make decisions that are not in their best interest but which are unavoidable under the circumstances. That danger is especially apparent in this case, as Cleaves-Milan and her daughter were forced to take "temporary refuge" at her husband's former home after their eviction.

Finally, in what can only be described as despicable, Aimco sent Cleaves-Milan a bill for $3,800 that it claimed she owed due to the "early termination of her lease." When the Chicago Tribune inquired about this fee, the company decided to drop it. How kind.

And the Award Goes to . . .

2009-10-09T12:09:00.002-04:00

Elected officials and pundits from all corners of the political landscape sounded off on the surprise selection of President Obama as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) the traditionally prestigious and respected announcement has been met with somewhat childish partisan bickering. Traditionally liberal news outlets trumpeted strikingly different headlines than conservative programs, and both Republicans and Democrats immediately set upon one another in what has become a rather embarrassing display.

On the liberal side, the DNC is perhaps most deserving of criticism for its shocking assertion that "the Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists" by criticizing the award. While it is true that many conservatives have reacted in remarkably distasteful ways, this allegation is simply over the top. It is interesting to note that such hyperbole is subject to the same criticism often levelled by the DNC itself against the Bush Administration. Specifically, it echoes the tired (and often misleading) mantra of "you're either for us or against us" to which many Democrats objected as an example of "fear-mongering." Dissent from the dominant view has a long and rather proud tradition in American politics, and it is unfair to conflate the interests of terrorists and the Republican party purely on the basis of their reaction to the selection of a Nobel Prize winner. Furthermore, it is inappropriate and ingenuous to employ the same tactics utilized by Republicans, which the DNC previously found so objectionable.

For conservatives, the most deplorable response has undoubtedly come from Rush Limbaugh. Interestingly, Limbaugh's comments had almost no bearing on the issue of selection itself. Rather, Limbaugh's remarks devolved into almost fanatical ravings about topics that were only tangentially related to the issue at hand. Even this was eclipsed, however, by his offensive portrait of the appropriate fundamental character of the United States. Limbaugh describes the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize as an attempt to "emasculate the United States," saying "they [presumably the world] love a weakened, neutered U.S." Limbaugh's final (and oft quoted) determination is that it is a "greater embarrassment" than losing the Olympics to have one's President awarded the Prize.

The most salient point is perhaps Limbaugh's use of the word "emasculate." Typically, one reads this as "to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken," but his further emphasis on the attempt to "neuter" the U.S. implies that he means instead the rather literal interpretation of "castration." In this sense, the word is more often read as 'depriving one of one's masculinity.' Of course, this interpretation is immediately alarming because it seems to imply (1) that the United States should embrace only traditionally 'masculine' concepts and (2) that peace is not one of them. This reading is supported by the general gist of Limbaugh's rantings, which in essence complain of a diminution of the prestige or worth of the United States when it is prevented from pursuing a military objective.

Although it is perhaps too much to wish that Limbaugh would seriously consider the meaning and ramifications of his words before speaking them, it is imperative that American people take the time ponder the ideology that his remarks reinforce. For instance, why is it enervating or offensive for the United States to be viewed as a nation that values peace? Must an association with peace rather than war be viewed as an indication of weakness? Certainly it is an American tradition to fight for important principles such as freedom, individual rights, and equality -- but is this done for the purpose of the actual fighting or with an eye to the better state of affairs that (we hope) will exist after the day has been won?

One would assume that a peaceful world in which all are free to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness would be considered preferable to a world in which people must constantly struggle and die for the same. Limbaugh does not seem to share this assumption, which, of course, is his right. But if the people of the United States of America do not believe it, if the fight itself has become more important than what we are fighting for, then it seems that we must seriously reevalute the importance we attach to values that we claim to hold dear: fraternity, family, liberty, and equality. Peace is essential to the enjoyment of these values, for they are dependent on freedom from fear and coercion. It is difficult to see, then, how the selection of the President as the recipient of an international prize praising efforts to achieve peace somehow demeans the United States.

Finally, this post would be remiss if it failed to recognize those individuals who have admirably demonstrated the qualities of true statesmen. Most notable are Governor Tim Pawlenty and Senator John McCain. Though they likely do not agree with the committee's choice and were far from defending his selection, each showed laudable discipline in giving respectful congratulations to the President. They, at least, recognized that the Nobel Peach Prize -- regardless of one's political leanings -- is a great honor for the country as a whole.

Photo Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/09/nobel-peace-prize-winners-barack-obama

In Their Defense

2009-10-01T15:05:00.004-04:00

Ever a controversial figure, Justice Scalia recently suggested that he wishes some talented attorneys had chosen other careers. Though his comments were probably intended only to praise the intelligence of the lawyers who argue before the Court and to highlight the complex challenges facing our society, the issue indirectly raised by his remarks is interesting to contemplate. Are legal disputes worthy of such attention by the erudite?

It is no secret that lawyers are easy scapegoats for many of society's ills. Several recent studies (e.g. this one conducted for the ABA in 2002) demonstrate that public perception of lawyers is consistently less than flattering. Surprisingly, people also generally express satisfaction with their legal representation and the abstract perception of a "career in the law" remains positive. It is not hard to see how these seeming paradoxes might arise. Though a litigant may be downright friendly with their own attorney, this relationship is likely offset by negative feelings toward opposing counsel. Throw in emotional reactions to the conflict, frustration with the many unavoidable hurdles in legal proceedings, and the often sensationalist media coverage of controversies, and it may be fair to say that, when it comes to overall popularity, the deck is stacked against legal practitioners.

Still, lawyers are absolutely essential to our society. In a nation and a cultural that prizes the rule of law, adepts in legal principles and methodology are indispensable in virtually every facet of sociocultural life. Financial transactions, government programs, non-profit organizations, and international treaties are all examples of the myriad arenas in which lawyers provide valuable services. Lawyers help to fight crime and safeguard the innocent. They help to protect the environment and maximize corporate profits. Many of our elected leaders are lawyers, and countless more weigh in on the creation of laws that help to order and regulate our daily lives. Lawyers interact with both the best and worst elements of society, and perform essential jobs that range from the most attractive to the most trying. In truth, the dislike of lawyers may arise in part from that fact that they are so essential, but hardly needs saying that this is not an appropriate justification.

Possibly because of its importance in our society, the study and practice of law is one of the most closely regulated (in fact, self-regulated) disciplines in existence. Though countless jokes refer to the greed and immorality in the legal profession, the reality is that lawyers must abide by extremely strict ethical guidelines. While these rules may sometimes be seen as flexible or unclear, this is not because lawyers ignore or the law or have a penchant for committing transgressions; rather, it is a consequence of routinely engaging exceptionally difficult 'gray areas' where a single right answer may not exist. Of course, it cannot be denied that some lawyers do fall below these ethical standards. Some lawyers do embrace greedy or immoral desires, and it is easy to see how a familiarity with the law may grant an enhanced ability to commit misdeeds. It is unfair and unwarranted, however, to extend this this 'bad apples' philosophy to all legal practitioners. The "public defender from Podunk," for example, would likely have devoted obscene amounts of time for a small amount of money to the resolution of an issue that meant nothing to her -- but everything to her indigent client. Such dedication is much more the norm in legal circles, and it deserves nothing less than glowing admiration.

A common maxim holds that "everyone hates lawyers until they need one." In our modern society and culture, lawyers are need quite frequently and serve in various important ways. The study and practice of law is a noble pursuit that is vital to the survival of a society that seeks to live together harmoniously and solve conflicts in an equitable fashion. Lawyers also engage some of the most important issues of our time, and they are often the vehicle through which important debates are conducted and resolved. Thus, while Justice Scalia makes a valid point that our complex world is certainly in need of brilliant minds and innovative thinkers to tackle a variety of diverse problems, we should all be content -- and grateful -- that may of them chose to study law.

Fighting Extradition

2009-09-29T20:30:00.011-04:00

Several famous members of the film industry, such as Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, have joined a petition calling for the immediate release of Roman Polanski. Polanski was detained on a United States warrant as he was traveling to the Zurich Film Festival, which was to bestow on him the Lifetime Achievement Award this year. The warrant stems from a 1977 child sex case, in which Polanski pleaded guilty but fled to his native France before sentencing.

Many individuals -- including the victim -- have expressed displeasure both with how the case was handled in 1977 and with how authorities are currently proceeding. A particular point of contention seems to be the conduct of the judge who presided at the original trial, and allegations abound that he was biased and unreasonable when it came to sentencing. The victim, who was 13 years old at the time, long ago received an unspecified settlement against Polanski and has expressed that, "Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Several officials in both France and Poland -- countries in which Polanski has citizenship -- have strenuously called for him to be released on bail. French Minister of Culture and Communications Frédéric Mitterrand, especially, has advocated for Polanski's release. In a recent TIME article Mitterrand is quoted as saying, "To see [Polanski] thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history — and as he was traveling to an event honoring him — is absolutely horrifying." Taking aim at the U.S. authorities seeking his arrest, Mitterrand added, "There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face."

Prosecutors, on the other hand, have consistently maintained that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to allow a man who "drugged and raped" a young girl to go free. Also salient is the fact is that Polanski was not tried before a questionable judge or even a jury of his peers -- he pled guilty. In fact, in all the furor over this issue there has been very little focus on the actual crime itself. Few, if any, deny that Polanski did indeed force himself sexually on a 13-year-old girl. Unless the media have omitted new revelations that cast significant doubt on Polanski's original guilt, it is hard to see any justification for his continued freedom.

This case presents many sensitive issues that must be carefully weighed if one is truly to pursue justice. Delicate questions of judicial impartiality, legal ethics, prosecutorial discretion, and victims' rights are certainly evident in the debate surrounding Polanski's arrest. It is also quite clear, however, that Polanski's international stature or widely acclaimed artistic gifts have absolutely no bearing on the issue. For that matter, the long passage of time since the offense is also of little importance. While this factor could appropriately influence a future sentencing decision, the lack of a statute of limitation on offenses of this type indicates that the passage of time is of no consequence in the eyes of the law. Moreover, statutes of limitations are an expression of the belief that culpability for serious offenses does not diminish as the years pass. Guilt may be disproved or atoned for, but it may not be simultaneously admitted and avoided.

The world is becoming increasingly globalized and there are numerous treaties between nations that define legal prerogatives and provide for extradition and the serving of international arrest warrants. In executing the warrant for Polanski, it does not appear as though Switzerland trampled on the sovereignty of any other nation or broke any international laws. The only reason the warrant had not been executed sooner was because Polanski had fled to France, hiding behind its refusal to extradite French citizens.

Roman Polanski voluntarily admitted in a court of law to having had sex with an underage girl and he fled the jurisdiction to avoid sentencing. He has not retracted his guilty plea and no new evidence has been offered to prove his innocence. Polanski is not absolved of guilt because of his artistic prowess, nor is he immune from punishment by virtue of his celebrity. It is extremely difficult to see why he should not pay for his crime.

Concerning Campaign Cash

2009-09-22T15:30:00.010-04:00

A recent decision by the D.C. Circuit could preview the outcome of a similar case in the Supreme Court concerning campaign finance laws. In short, the federal court determined that some provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act that limited the amounts that non-profit groups could spend on election-related activities also impeded citizens' rights to free expression. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a similar challenge concerning corporations.

There are several ways of reading this decision depending on one's own political and ideological inclinations. Supporters of campaign finance reform contend that relaxing the restrictions on these groups will encourage corruption in the political process. Supporters of the decision no doubt welcome the larger role non-profit groups are now likely to play in future elections. The decision by the D.C. Circuit does not come close to silencing the quarrel between these two camps -- especially since it can still be appealed to the Supreme Court and is thus far from being recognized as settled law. On the contrary, the decision to allow non-profit groups wider latitude in election spending only draws more attention to the debate over how much of a role such organizations ought to play in the political process.

The pending case in the Supreme Court is similar, but it focuses on the political activities and contributions of corporations rather than non-profits. While it is clear that parallels to the instant case exist, there is also an argument to be made that the flexibility granted to non-profits and corporations should not be equal. Non-profit organizations (e,g. EMILY's List, the group that brought the challenge in the above case) rely on a particular constituency composed of individuals with like-minded views. It is easier to trace the path of their contributions to individual citizens and to impute the purpose of political expression to these donors. Moreover, in a world where large scale, effective communication campaigns have become extremely technical and increasingly expensive, it is not difficult to see how aggregating resources and channeling a political message through a single entity significantly furthers the purpose of expressing a particular view.

It is arguably more difficult to discern this important connection when it comes to corporations, which derive their spending power from profits and effective business models rather than direct contributions from individuals who share similar views. Though common beliefs and values may indeed be prevalent in a corporate environment and contribute to the cultivation of a particular ideological climate, the spending power of a private business is not directly tied to the popularity of beliefs in the same way as a non-profit organization. For example, dissention by mid-level workers from a popular conception propogated by corporate executives is unlikely to affect those political causes and campaigns to which the corporation actually contributes. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules as many commentators have predicted, restrictions on spending by these corporations will soon be greatly relaxed as well.

While the Court has ruled in the past that corporations are (for all intents and purposes) to be endowed with many of the rights and privileges of actual citizens, it seems problematic to offer them more flexibility in the area of politics. One could argue, for instance, that the executives, stock holders, employees, etc. who make up the corporation can simply exercise their rights to free speech individually or through non-profit organizations with which they agree. The fact that the vast resources of corporations are not subject to the same popular influence that affects non-profit organizations is also troubling because it seems to shift the balance of power in political discussion. Insulated from public opinion by practice and profit, those at the helms of large corporations would likely acquire greater influence in the political process -- a notion that is hard to reconcile with the idea of democratic self-governance by the people.

No one doubts that the upcoming decision will dramatically affect the landscape of electoral politics -- regardless of the outcome. Most scholars and interested observers, however, have predicted that the Supreme Court will probably issue a ruling in favor of corporate freedom. Hopefully such a decision would not come at the expense of the People.

Newest Justice Steps Out

2009-09-17T21:48:00.009-04:00

Washington, D.C. welcomes its newest big name in style. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is known to be tough on the bench, but this video shows that she's pretty smooth on the dance floor!

Photo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Respectful Populism

2009-09-13T11:04:00.003-04:00

A large march organized by various conservative groups such as FreedomWorks was held in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Various estimates place the number of attendance somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 activists -- most of whom were previously affiliated with the TEA Party protests earlier this summer. While one may not agree with the politics and conclusions advanced by these groups, all must certainly recognize their right to exercise their freedom of speech in a legal manner. While it may sometimes be considered inflammatory (even offensive), the free expression of ideas and beliefs -- especially political dissent -- has always occupied an important place in American society. Though some of the images and slogans used by these protesters were probably in bad taste, the march itself was organized and had obtained the proper permits. It should therefore be welcomed as a sign of the healthy operation of our political system, and a welcome change from the ridiculous behavior seen in town halls across the country. By exercising our rights in responsible yet compelling ways, we work together as a society to keep the country vibrant and strong.

That said, the message communicated by these groups deserves some analysis. Many news sources (and some protest organizers themselves) have compared the protest to the grassroots populism and netroots activism that swept the Obama campaign to victory in the last presidential election. There are a few very important differences between these two campaigns.

For instance, as noted by one GOP strategist the current conservative movement is fragmented, ranging from measured concerns such as deficit spending to outlandish claims that President Barack Obama was not born in America. Conversely, the Obama movement was well organized and had a singular focus. This solidarity could fairly be attributed in large part to the much bemoaned Republican mishandling of governmental affairs in the years preceding the election, and the Obama campaign did a remarkable job of distilling and capturing these concerns. The conservative movement, however, has resulted in a more eclectic response that is difficult to encapsulate.

One could read this response as more of an emotional reaction to social change than real concern for the practical results of policies. The support for this conclusion comes from the spectrum of complaints that have have been leveled at the Democratically-led government. Accusations of imaginary birth certificate cover-ups and allegations of plans to "kill off granny" demonstrate either a distinct lack of the ability to evaluate proffered policies or a strong disinterest in truly investigating them. Both of these approaches imply a desire to avoid engaging on a policy level -- an odd strategy when protesters argue that these policies are the source of their frustration.

On the other hand, if the conservative countercurrents are more of a visceral reaction to changes in the status quo, this response makes more sense. Unbridled anger which fails to focus on a particular aspect of governance or failure by a party in favor of broad, vague arguments about ideology perfectly fits this pattern. Such an emotional response (combined, of course, with some purely politically motivated encouragement by Republicans) was clearly seen in the town hall debacles this summer. Of course, a visceral reaction to change is understandable -- even normal. But a country cannot be governed only in response to irrational and emotional urges.

Finally, this post would be remiss without some mention of the antics of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). His actions are emblematic of the severe disrespect inherent in the conservative furor -- disrespect that would, of course, be hotly criticized by Republicans were they bearing the brunt of it. Wilson's exclamation was foolish (lacking any true value to add to the debate), frustrating (common sense and decency clearly show that it was not his turn to speak), pointless (he is perfectly capable of speaking on the floor of the House at almost any point), and selfish (he desperately needed the focus to be on him). This type of behavior seriously hampers the efforts of the government to meet the needs of its citizens. Perhaps he has something to learn from the more respectful protesters of yesterday.

Palin Panegyric

2009-09-09T17:18:00.017-04:00

Sarah Palin decided to weigh in again on the healthcare debate Wednesday, penning an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that is almost certainly an early step in her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The short column is notably more civil than her fiery and woefully inaccurate Facebook postings and seeks to cast Palin as a thoughtul and compassionate polemic responding to President Obama's previous op-ed in the New York Times. This tactic is to be applauded and it would be a welcome (and productive) change if more politicians and interested members of the public would express themselves in this way. Beyond appreciation for the chosen method of conveying ideas, however, it is hard to take Palin's editorial seriously as it still suffers from an overreliance on personal ideology and a lack of astute argument.

The obvious appeals to the conservative base (by way of tributes to Ronald Reagan and the Cato Institute) aside, Palin's piece actually does a good job of organizing and presenting her arguments against the current proposals to reform healthcare. The editorial also raises a very valid point, namely that the Democratic proposals in Congress have been unable to overcome large price tags and dismal forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Unfortunately, this singular criticism is the full extent of the possible contribution of the column; the remaining portion displays a lack of specificity, practicality, and veracity.

For instance, Palin begins her argument in earnest with the following:

"Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals 'will provide more stability and security to every American.'"

There are two clear fallacies in this excerpt that prevent it from having much informative value to a concerned reader. First, the repeated reference to "common sense" -- while charming and colloquial -- is erroneous and misleading. It would be more appropriate to substitute "conservative principles" since these statements express ideas that Republicans hold to be true (and perhaps even self-evident) rather than truths that are almost universally recognized -- that which would normally be termed common sense. Labeling the above assertions in this way is as ingenuous as it would be for a liberal author to write, "Common sense tells us that closer regulation of the market is vital to our economy." Many reasonable individuals could and have reached different conclusions from the ones Palin offers, and her stab at cloaking them in the guise of common sense is a regrettable attempt to make it appear as though her ideas have near universal support.

The second fallacy is the infamous "straw man" argument. Since it is quite straightforward, there is no need to spend much time dissecting it. Suffice it to say that it is an unfair characterization to say that Democrats are advocating for "a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan." Though one may disagree with the current proposals in Congress, this is an oversimplication and belittles the genuine efforts that have been put forth by both parties.

Palin also uses sweeping language that is reminiscent of her campaign slogans:

"With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington [referring to the promise to 'provide more stability and security to every American']. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep."

Statements like this are curious. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize elected officials and the legislature for what one sees as failed or forgotten promises, but off-the-cuff remarks like these go further and seem to express disbelief that a government can ever live up to the promises it makes or have a significant and positive impact on its citizens. It is surprising that such a cynical and pessimistic view would be held by someone who -- interestingly enough -- wishes to lead that same government.

Next, there is the renewal of one of Palin's more unfortunate and ridiculous claims:

"Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. [...] But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."

To avoid wasting time (again) on this buffoonery, the reader is referred to FactCheck.org for a treatment of this subject. Here it is only important to note that Palin (who started the furor by introducing and popularizing the myth of "death panels") attempts to attribute the controversy to the concern of the American people. The remark about "unelected bureaucrats" making "life-or-death" decisions could perhaps have a ring of truth, as inefficiency and mishandling of important matters can be a very real obstacle to overcome. Yet there is no proof offered to suggest that the current system -- in which unelected businessmen charged with making profits and minimizing losses make these same decisions -- is any more palatable.

Palin also says:

" [...] President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals [...] "

"With all due respect," it seems nothing short of hypocrisy to make such an accusation when this passage deflects in precisely the same manner. Indeed, the topical shift is so pronounced that it is difficult to see what other purpose this paragraph could serve.

Finally, Palin sums up her argument by saying:

"Instead of poll-driven 'solutions,' let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven."

It is far from unreasonable to argue that healthcare reform should not be purely driven by "polls;" many of the the issues involved are extraordinarily complex and require significant administrative and medical expertise to approach correctly. To deny all influence of polls or elections, however, would be to completely elimuinate any form of popular input. While public opinion should be tempered by expert knowledge, it certainly should not be ignored.

It is also incredibly difficult to see how one might reconcile the ideas that Palin puts forth. Labels such as "patient-centered" and "result-driven" obviously sound appealing, but in practice they are often in conflict with "market-oriented" strategies. This is, possibly, one of the most important issues in the healthcare debate -- it is also completely glossed over by Palin's op-ed. If a healthcare provider is to be operated like a business, its goals tend to favor the continued existence and profitability of the provider. If a healthcare provider is "patient-centered" and "result-driven," then the goals of that provider are likely to focus less on economic concerns and more on the needs of the sick individual. Almost all politicians would agree that the second options sounds better. The complication is that cost and risk are likely to serve to very different functions in the schema of these two companies, and it is very difficult to see how a provider could have both the patient's concerns and its own profitability as a primary goal. Palin's column fails to offer any guidance -- it simply says that healthcare should somehow accomplish both.

The end of the editorial simply lists ideas that have come from other conservative sources without explaining how they are helpful or why they are preferable to the current proposals. It may be that they are, in fact, more likely to achieve beneficial reform, but the reader cannot accept their superiority without some legitimate proof. In sum, while it is encouraging to see the beginning of a public (and civil) exchange of words and ideas, Palin's contribution seems to be more an homage to the conservative platform -- and the start of a campaign -- than a true launching pad for successful reform. It could, however, provoke successful and measured debate.

Photo source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/pains-makeup-stylist-fetches-highest-salary-in-2-week-period/

Despicable Conduct

2009-09-03T23:12:00.005-04:00

The out of control shouting matches, mud-slinging, and misinformation campaigns have reached their predictable climax. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, voter or activist, no individual has the right to violate another person in this way. Resorting to violence in lieu of thoughtful arguments is not proper, respectful, or democratic. It is a disgrace.

Disengaging Citizens

2009-09-03T13:53:00.003-04:00

I have long refused to embrace the liberal attempt to label the Republican Party as the "Party of 'No.'" It is true that the overall aim of a large number of recent conservative initiatives has been simply to stymie the efforts of the Democratic Party. It is certainly tempting -- and politically expedient -- to use this resistance as a marketing tool for the Democratic brand. This appears slightly unfair, however, when one considers the universe of possible options for legislators in the minority in response to bills that they oppose. At the most basic level, behind all of the political maneuvering, bargaining, and compromising, lawmakers are ultimately faced with two options -- "Yea" or "Nay." Thus, it may be unfair to criticize Republicans in Congress for voting against legislation that was crafted almost entirely by individuals with whom they staunchly disagree (this is ignoring, of course, the possibility of bipartisan initiatives that by definition require some measure of sacrifice from both parties -- concessions that Republicans have been remarkably averse to making and in that some respects may actually warrant the above label). Still, the conservative opposition to President Obama's planned speech to students goes a long way toward justifying this criticism.

It is completely understandable (even expected) that the political party in the minority will attempt to make a serious issue out of each and every available opportunity. Both Democrats and Republicans engage in this type of warfare constantly, and the less influential the party is the louder one can expect the myriad complaints to be. It is also understandable that one ideological camp will attempt to ensure the integrity of its own message while challenging that of a competing faction. This tension and interplay of ideas in our society is what spurs discussion and, more than anything else, serves to safeguard citizens' intellectual and expressive freedoms. The conservative opposition to the President's proposed address to students, however, goes too far and transcends the bounds of reason.

The vociferous response that this event has elicited is nothing short of startling. Such a proposition is certainly not without precedent; several previous presidents including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have addressed students with impunity. It is also difficult to see how "speak[ing] directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school" and "challeng[ing] students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning" will have a detrimental effect on the student population. In fact, one would assume that encouragement from the leader of our country would have uniquely positive effects.

Conservatives insist that this speech is reprehensible because its true aim is to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." They decry what they term "the idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans" and claim it "is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power." If valid, this assertion would indeed be a serious concern, but granting credence to this suggestion is irrational and completely unwarranted.

First, to assume that a simple speech by President Obama would have the power to instantly "indoctrinate" America's youth is simply preposterous. This claim would have more credibility if the White House were suggesting, for example, a regular program of morning addresses that were required to be shown to students each day during the school year. A single, optional message wishing good luck and expressing encouragement to students simply does not have the ability to brainwash the whole of the student population.

Second, an attempt to manipulate students via a single televised address would be poorly conceived and ill-advised. Many children are likely too young to appreciate the significance of the moment, much less complicated justifications for policy positions (were any even intended to be offered). Students who are old enough to comprehend these arguments are probably also adept enough to seriously consider and reflect critically on what they mean. One would hope that they are also intelligent enough to think about the issues facing the nation and to based their conclusions on their own understanding, analyses, beliefs, and principles.

Finally, it is important to remember that the speech being offered is to be given by the elected leader of the most powerful country in the free world -- not some dangerous, unstable individual intent on harming the nation's children. It is a public message meant to encourage students, and which is able to be viewed by students, parents, teachers, seniors, and anyone else who wishes to tune in. Though teachers are encouraged to incorporate the moment into their lesson plans, it is by no means mandatory and the White House has no control over if or how teachers choose to discuss it. It would be beyond idiotic for any elected official to abuse such a public event by indulging in shameless personal promotion or campaigning, and there is no indication that this is the President's goal.

All available evidence tends to show that this address is intended to do what countless public servants have done before -- encourage America's youth, draw attention to the importance of education in our society, and provide an opportunity for civic engagement. Why say no?

An Evangelical Education

2009-08-31T17:50:00.005-04:00

Republican candidate Bob McDonnell has recently been fending off attacks that stem from his 93-page thesis that was written prior to his graduation from Regent University. Rather than attempting to vigorously defend the paper, McDonnell has largely back-pedaled from many of the paper's outlandish claims, arguing that his views have changed in the 20 years since it was written.

This possibility should not be discarded without consideration. Twenty years is certainly a sufficient amount of time for views -- even those that may be fundamental to an individual's personal ideology -- to change in response to new stimuli and novel experiences. In fact, it would be difficult to imagine that McDonnell has not adjusted at least some of these beliefs. Though Democrat Creigh Deeds and his campaign team protest that McDonnell is attempting to hide his background in order to appear to be a more moderate candidate (a claim that may in fact have some validity), it would be impossible for McDonnell to maintain even that charade without actually having abandoned some of the more alarming beliefs contained in the paper.

Moreover, the very idea of exploiting a graduation thesis as a political tool many years after it is published seems inherently problematic. While it is true that McDonnell left Regent University at the age of 34 and would be more likely to have been confirmed in his beliefs than a younger graduate, the special qualities of universities that encourage imagination, innovation, and playful engagement with complicated topics advise against the immediate assumption that his thesis is an accurate portrayal of the man McDonnell is today.

All of this, of course, assumes that Regent University (formerly known as CBN University) is a typical academic environment that advocates individual thought and intellectual rigor as its primary goals. This is far from assured. As a school that was founded by the infamous Pat Robertson, and which proudly displays the motto "Christian Leadership to Change the World," it is hard to accept a priori that Regent does not educate students to place Judeo-Christian values before their intellectual pursuits. While religion and academics are by no means incompatible, excerpts from McDonnell's paper that harshly criticize feminists, working mothers, homosexuals, and 'fornicators' call into question how rigorous his analysis was actually encouraged to be.

Universities should never -- indeed must never -- be dissuaded from encouraging students to explore ideas and beliefs that run counter to norms and commonly accepted truths about society, culture, morality, etc., but it is also their responsibility to instill in their students a sense of responsibility that demands fidelity to honest academic standards. In other words, they must teach their students that they cannot simply 'make it up.' Such shoddy pseudo-scholarship leads to beliefs that are based on a false sense of rationality. More importantly, this type of work frequently unfairly maligns or disadvantages minority groups, and provides perverted justifications for personal prejudices. For example, as recently as 2003, McDonnell was "widely quoted" as having expressed the belief that homosexual activity cast doubt on a person's qualifications to be a judge. This is disturbingly close to the assertions found in his thesis.

Exploring old, new, and even stigmatized avenues of inquiry is how we move forward together as a nation. Avoiding challenges, blaming others in society, or failing to truly examine our own ideologies is how we fall back. Rob McDonnell has rightly distanced himself from many of the offensive remarks in his thesis, and he should not be judged prematurely on the basis of what he said as a student 20 years ago. This ordeal should, however, serve to highlight the importance of education and true academic discovery in our society. Without it, academic research is about as useful as Pat Robertson's premonitions.

A Tribute to the 'Liberal Lion'

2009-08-26T23:37:00.003-04:00

My sincerest condolences to the Kennedy family on the passing of the Senator. The outpouring of compassion for the family from both the right and left honors the impact that this man has had on politics, on people, and on the nation. May he rest in peace.

Photo Source: http://filmgordon.wordpress.com/2009/01/page/7/

Standing Up

2009-08-20T00:49:00.005-04:00

A hearty congratulations to Rep. Barney Fran k (D-MA), who struck a blow for rationality amidst the cacophony of ill-informed and fear-driven accusations swirling around healthcare. While stern, Rep. Frank's response to the inane comparison between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler was certainly warranted -- perhaps even provoked.

The First Amendment is undoubtedly one of the greatest freedoms accorded to the citizens of the United States, and its promises and provisions are sacred and expansive. The sentiments expressed by unruly attendees at recent town hall meetings arguably fall under the aegis of the freedom of speech and, in any event, these individuals clearly have a right to offer their point of view and to question their elected representatives about their legislative positions. Yet this does not necessarily mean that all inquiries are created equal.

The young woman in the video demonstrates the difference that might exist. Elected officials quite clearly have a responsibility and a duty to address the concerns of their constitutents; they should devote great care and attention to understanding the concerns and answering the questions of the electorate. Politicians cannot be reasonably expected, however, to rationally and seriously entertain notions that are so far removed from reality as to be almost laughable.

While it is unfortunate that a woman who is clearly interested and engaged in civic affairs was embarrassed at a large public meeting, it is equally regrettable that her poorly considered question precluded serious treatment by Rep. Frank. Hopefully this exchange will begin to re-center the debate where it belongs -- around the real (not imagined) issues in this controversy.

Killing Conversation

2009-08-11T18:54:00.010-04:00

The previous posts have dealt, independently, with the issues of town hall disruptions and the propagation of misleading information about healthcare. Recent news reports demonstrate quite strikingly that these problems have become joined. The unfortunate result is an increasingly inhibited dialogue that has taken a nasty turn.

Suddenly absent from the political limelight since her resignation, Sarah Palin attempted to insert herself into the debate with a recent Facebook post. In addition to unabashedly ignoring facts and conjuring rumors about so-called "death panels," the former governor also introduced her son, Trig, into the fray -- relying upon his innocence to evoke concern and effectively exploiting her own child. Suggesting that her son could somehow be executed as the result of healthcare reform is patently ridiculous -- and a grotesque strategy.

Thankfully, many Republicans more interested in an intelligent and constructive conversation -- such as Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) and Jack Kingston (R-GA) -- quickly distanced themselves from these remarks (though Palin still found support among the more radical elements of her party). Far from instituting the mandatory euthanizing of older Americans and toddlers -- something which is, in fact, illegal in 49 states -- reform proposals provide for nothing beyond Medicare funds for concerns such as "designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment." Nowhere do they even suggest that doctors counsel their patients to refuse medical intervention.

This despicable dissemblance has woven a tapestry of fear and panic that has exploded into town hall meetings. For instance, while Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) was certainly expected to face significant opposition stemming from his defection to the Democratic Party, it was the issue of healthcare that forced him to repeatedly plead with his audience to remain civil. Interestingly, one constituent (likely drawing from President Obama's statement supporting rigorous debate) claimed, "I don't think we have bad attitudes... We're just being Americans." It is hard to accept this assertion. Shouting over others in the audience, disrupting the discussion, and booing politicians and questioners alike is harmful to the democratic processes that Americans hold so dear; such behavior is hardly representative of the noble ideals and high standards for society inherent in the American consciousness.

It is completely understandable that so many should be so concerned. As one sixth of the nation's economy and, more importantly, a system directly tied to the well-being of citizens and their loved ones, the topic of healthcare is an extremely sensitive issue. There are very good reasons to engage in a vigorous debate of the proposals being considered in Congress, and it is inevitable that even reasonable, well-informed individuals will vehemently disagree on the right course of action. The solution, however, is not to descend into a state of chaos that precludes the realization of some type of reform. Nor, as several conservative groups seem to have expressed, is the solution to reject compromise, halt negotiation, and kill any chance for actual reform. According to the notes of the AFL-CIO, one conservative organizer acknowledged that "the purpose of Tea Parties is not to find a solution to the health care crisis." What then, might one ask, is the purpose of generating so much fear and anxiety?

A viable proposal for healthcare reform must be effective, attainable, and beneficial to most Americans. Any system will have flaws, but a good proposal will not have failings that seriously harm even a small number of individuals. Finally, a good proposal must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to improve the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of the citizens of the United States of America. There are perhaps many ways to accomplish this goal, but a resolution will only be reached through open, honest, intelligent debate. This is not encouraged by the current state of affairs and one would hope that the tenor of the controversy changes very quickly. When the most powerful nation in the world fails to provide the best healthcare for its citizens, it is a disservice them, to the dedicated healthcare professionals who struggle to work within the system, and to future generations of Americans.

Campaign of Confusion

2009-08-04T11:55:00.007-04:00

It is striking how much anyone following the healthcare debate must wade through information and attempt to discern fact from fiction. It is also interesting to note that most of the misleading "facts" about healthcare and the proposed plans to reform the system seem to emanate from conservative sources. The Drudge Report, for instance, recently featured an astonishingly blatant misrepresentation of the the truth that attempted to encourage the belief that healthcare reform translates to the obliteration of all aspects of the current private system. This was an unfair characterization of reformers' intentions that was created through cheap video-editing techniques and the rampant use of false innuendo.

Perhaps one of the most shameless examples is a recent column by Bill O'Reilly, which is ostensibly constructed around a quote from Benjamin Franklin stating that "when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." The article demonstrates the questionable trend of lifting irrelevant and often misleading tidbits of information and haphazardly disguising them as critiques of non-conservative ideas. It is quite a stretch to assert that this quote reveals Benjamin Franklin's opposition to affordable healthcare, and the spurious argument is not saved by Mr. O'Reilly's attempt to link the ideas by saying that "free healthcare is free money." Even if one were to overlook the logical fallacies in this proposition, it completely misses the mark as Congress is far from considering healthcare coverage that is completely "free."

Moreover, throughout his article Mr. O'Reilly unfairly paints healthcare reform as an attempt to provide free medical care to the the poor. In doing this, he purposefully and disingenuously chooses to ignore the large proportion of the middle class who will benefit from lower premiums, more access to affordable care, and less trepidation about the health of their families in turbulent economic times. It is unclear from the article how these people "continue to fail to pursue happiness effectively."

The article ends with the poignant flourish that "The argument [for healthcare reform] has its emotion. But remember, Benjamin Franklin would not have supported national health care." Such a humorous conclusion is far from assured and the obvious appeal to patriotic love for a revered national figure to conceal an ill-supported argument is readily apparent. The ongoing campaign of misinformation about healthcare reform does nothing to further the debate about how to actually accomplish it.

Perhaps the opponents to the current proposals would be better served by constructively contributing to the process and developing concrete, workable plans of their own. Confusion and the perversion of facts and events serve only to create fear among those who should be level-headed. And to borrow a quote from another Founding Father:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." - John Adams

Uncivil Society

2009-07-31T17:43:00.002-04:00

Today Politico featured an article discussing the rise in unruly participants at town hall meetings. These sessions have become a more common (or at least more popular) way for politicians to connect with their constituents -- perhaps due in large part to the example set by the Obama administration, which uses this meeting style frequently and to great effect. Yet as Congress turns to the serious and pressing issues of our day, more and more participants in these "once-staid" events have become increasingly vocal, aggressive, and hostile against members of both parties.

Take, for example, the case of Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) and his recent encounter with the so-called "birther" movement. Such behavior, the article implies, is fast becoming the norm at town hall meetings. Even absent knowledge of the true prevalence of this phenomenon, the anecdotal evidence is enough to cause significant concern. The cornerstone of the system of government in the United States is the power of the citizenry to express its views, choose its leaders, and substantially influence the way in which the country is governed. Town hall meetings seem to be a nice distillation of these goals, providing voters with direct, immediate access to their elected officials and allowing both groups to establish a constructive and informative dialogue. The apparent trend of disruptive behavior, ad hominem attacks, and even violence seems to seriously undermine this democratic goal.

Undoubtedly, even boorish individuals have the right to express their views -- even to express them strenuously. It would be unthinkable and contrary to the very notion of liberty to limit the free speech of those who are critical of the government. It is worth questioning, however, if all people have the right to express their views in a way that stymies open discussion and the constructive exchange of ideas. Such an exercise of free speech silences other voices who have just as much right to expression and inclusion. Is free speech in all forms truly free for all people?

When the Obama campaign demonstrated that the internet can be a powerful and effective way to inspire and mobilize supporters, I privately expressed excitement that perhaps the rise of "netroots" movements and the increasing ability to connect through digital media would lead to a new age of town hall meetings online. The improved connectivity provided by technology should be a boon to discussion, debate, and democracy, for an informed and engaged population is undeniably an asset to any self-governing body. The recent occurrences at traditional town halls, however, are enough to give one pause. Hopefully civic discourse can continue to proliferate while remaining civil.