BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

political philosophy Archive

Tuesday

4

November 2014

0

COMMENTS

Don’t Abolish Midterms Just Yet

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Election Time, Waste & Government Reform

A New York Times op-ed by a Duke professor and a student argues that midterm elections are passé. A cynic might conclude something about the timing of this realization – that it coincides with an election in which the party favored by academia (and the New York Times) is likely to receive an electoral shellacking. But the argument is worth taking at face value, so let’s consider it on the merits.

Schanzer and Sullivan say that midterms once made sense, but that times have changed. For one, they argue that the need for close electoral accountability has diminished thanks to modern technology:

Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined. In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.

Perhaps. Communicating with elected officials is certainly easier than ever before, as is taking the pulse of the electorate, but does greater access to public desires translate into legislative results? I find that politicians are most concerned about public views come election time. Longer terms for House members would thus reduce incentives for representatives to adhere to public desires.

Reading between the lines, one gets the impression that’s precisely what the authors want. They worry over the fact that “Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low,” and grumble that the “main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president.” Indeed, it appears to be any obstacle to an imperial presidency that most motivates the authors.

“The realities of the modern election cycle,” they complain, “are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.”

In other words, this appears to boil down to the standard statist complaint over “gridlock.” Though they also throw in some identity politics for good measure:

Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

Again, a cynic might note that the kind of voters the authors would prefer politicians stop appealing to tend to favor an ideology and party that academia (and the media) loathes. But not to worry, they have a solution:

There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years. Doing so would relieve some (though, of course, not all) of the systemic gridlock afflicting the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more time and energy on governance instead of electioneering.

For many, anything that limits the energy politicians spend on governance – that is, the time spent imposing their whims on the rest of us – is likely to be a good thing. Gridlock, in other words, is a feature rather than a bug.

Political tools tend to be blunt instruments, and attempts to solve societal problems through the political process are often hamfisted and counterproductive. Certainly some problems need political solutions, but there is good reason for the process to be arduous and time consuming. The impulse of individual politicians in the face of any problem is to preen and overreact in order to demonstrate that they are “doing something.” It is up to institutions, then, to slow things down and force deliberation into the process. If midterm elections contribute to that process, then they are a net positive.

Friday

10

January 2014

0

COMMENTS

Reducing Political Power is the Only Defense Against Its Abuse

Written by , Posted in Big Government

The latest political scandal, the so-called Bridge-gate, to consume the media involves revelations that a top aid to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie deliberately jammed traffic in the district of a mayor who refused to endorse Christie’s reelection. It’s nice that the media is obsessed with something – abuse of political power- that actually matters for once, though I can’t help but wonder where they were when the National Park Service was using the government shutdown as an excuse to harass citizens for the purpose of scoring political points  for the administration against Congress. And it’s worth noting that there’s already been 17 times more coverage on the big three networks for Christie’s scandal than there has been in the last six months for the IRS, a major instance of political abuse that has yet to be fully resolved.

It’s unclear at this point whether Christie ordered or knew of his staffer’s actions, but that’s a political question that will sort itself out. I’m more interested in the policy implications.

As political payback goes Bridge-gate is rather weak sauce. David Boaz notes that it pails in comparison to the more open and direct abuses of Progressive hero FDR:

FDR knew the rule, “Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” He wasn’t so squeamish when it came to retailers who defied his preferences. Sewell Avery, chairman of the big catalog company Montgomery Ward, opposed labor unions, Roosevelt’s New Deal, and Roosevelt’s re-election. In 1944 Avery refused FDR’s order to extend his company’s labor contracts to avoid a strike. Roosevelt ordered the War Department to seize the offices of Montgomery Ward. Attorney General Francis Biddle flew to Chicago to oversee the army’s physical removal of Avery from his office, as the photo shows.

FDR was in fact a godfather of sorts when it comes to the abuse of political power. Aside from being wasteful and ineffective, the massive spending and public works programs he established during the Great Depression were routinely used to reward political allies and punish opponents. He hardly invented the practice of political patronage, but he drastically increased its scale and impact.

We’ve since witnessed numerous other examples of political abuse, from Richard Nixon to J. Edgar Hoover. Each case demonstrated in its own way the dangers of concentrating too much political power in a single person.  Indeed, the only sure fire way to reduce the abuse of power is to reduce the amount of power itself. The less power any one individual or group is able to wield, the fewer cases of abuse we will witness. And the key to reducing political power is to reduce the size and scope of government itself.

Friday

20

December 2013

0

COMMENTS

A&E/Duck Dynasty Fight Demonstrates How the Marketplace of Ideas Has Devolved

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

In perhaps one of the most boneheaded business decisions ever made, A&E decided to sabotage its rating juggernaut, Duck Dynasty, in a fit of PC rage over comments from Phil Robertson about homosexuality in an article by GQ. Robertson, in a manner one might expect from a plainspoken outdoorsman from Louisiana, rather crudely expressed his personal inability to relate to same sex attraction through comparison of the various sexual organs involved. While both logically unconvincing of anything and potentially distasteful to the prudish, the statement hardly represented an attack on anyone.

He also he expressed the rather orthodox Christian view that homosexuality is a sin. More specifically, he listed homosexuality among a host of other sins he sees as plaguing the nation, but since adulterers have no grievance group, homosexuality is the only one we’ve heard a big stink about. He also prefaced the discussion with this:

“You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

And then he followed up with:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.”

And in a separate statement he added:

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

How bigoted and closed-minded of him. Oh wait, no, I’m confusing him with those who think silencing others is the best response to hearing anything disagreeable.

I don’t bring up Phil Robertson’s views because I necessarily share them. Some I do and some I don’t, but I’m not starting with the same set of principles as Phil Robertson, so I frequently reach different conclusions. What I did want to talk about, however, was the entirely inappropriate response to his expression from both sides.

First, the attacks on Phil Robertson seem to align with a troubling trend regarding the manner in which the modern left is engaging in political discourse. Which is to say, they aren’t. Rather than debate opponents, they ostracize them. They turn any expression of opposing views into de facto evidence of some moral deficiency (or, if they’re in academia, into evidence of a mental disorder) on part of the speaker that absolves anyone else of the need to hear, process or think critically about what they have to say. Even the mere act of organizing to express views and advance common interests is evidence of some nefarious conspiracy or shady behavior.

These are sad developments for American political discourse that undermine the functioning of our republican system. But the response from the right doesn’t always hit the mark, either.

In defending Phil Robertson from A&E’s boneheaded decision, some – including politicians like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal – have cited the First Amendment. This is a red herring that serves only to confuse the issue. The First Amendment protects the right of the people to speak without infringement by government. It says nothing of how other private citizens can respond to speech. If anything, the First Amendment is firmly on A&E’s side, as it protects the right of association, which includes the right to not associate, at their pleasure.

Unfortunately, the right of association is not universally supported by either the courts or the left, which while cheering A&E’s self-destructive overreaction, also oppose the right of other businesses to choose their own clientèle, so long as those clientèle belong to a PC-approved victim group (hint: that excludes Christians). Nevertheless, it is the freedom to associate that matters here. A&E ought to be able to fire whomever they please to advance the chosen vision of their brand.

Part of the problem is linguistic. “Free speech” has evolved to refer to more than just the First Amendment right to speak without government interference, but also the general public desire to encourage a marketplace of ideas through respect for different points of view. Some of then erroneously used the First Amendment as a stand-in for the latter definition of “free speech,” when it really only applies to the former. Thus confusion is unfortunate, as it undermines their case.

Dragging the First Amendment into the discussion of A&E decision to punish Phil Robertson for expressing a widely held religious view that singled out no person or group of people for proposed harm allows those who freely cheer the silencing of opponents to correctly point out that the government did not silence Robertson (indeed, no one did), and therefore A&E is in the right. But that’s not the issue. The issue should be our troubling and growing acceptance of a culture of intimidation that not only seeks to shout down those who utter views not considered politically correct, but which actively seeks to bring them personal harm in retaliation.

The First Amendment itself may not be implicated by A&E’s suspension of Robertson, or with the groups which frequently call for similar responses in other cases, but the principles and desire to promote a healthy and robust civic and political culture which led to the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights are at the very center of the matter.

Monday

2

December 2013

0

COMMENTS

Most Prudent Congress Ever?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Media Bias

USA today reported that the current Congress has hit “new productivity lows” (Hat-tip: Reason):

Congress is on track to beat its own low record of productivity, enacting fewer laws this year than at any point in the past 66 years.

It’s a continuing slide of productivity that began in 2011, after Republicans recaptured the House majority in the 2010 elections, and the ability to find common ground has eluded the two parties while the legislative to-do list piles up.

The 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, emerged as the least productive two-year legislating period on record, while 2013 is on track to become the least productive single year in modern history.

Stories such as this do a lot to illustrate the assumptions of journalists that don’t explicitly make it into their reporting (some might consider it, dare I say, bias). The obvious, and also foolish, assumption behind this rather typical approach to legislative reporting is the belief that laws are fundamentally positive in nature, and therefore the more the merrier. Put another way, the Congress which passes the most laws is also seen as the most productive.

We could challenge this assumption by highlighting the plethora of laws passed in recent years that have been anything but productive (Obamacare, Dodd Frank, etc.), but I don’t want to get into the legislative weeds. I’d rather just point out that the logic behind concern-trolling Congressional productivity is internally inconsistent. If, as they presume, legislation is de facto positive and productive, then we should expect the need for new legislation to decrease over time. Since the purpose for passing legislation is, or ought to be, to solve actual problems, there should be fewer and fewer things we need solving over time as more and more laws are passed. In which case, articles like this would not be written.

But the reality is that legislation is not always productive. Sometimes it fails to solve an issue, or creates more problems than it solves. This is why the same people who take the statist view of legislation still implicitly acknowledge there remain a great many problems to solve. The realization that legislation can be either productive or unproductive, rather, should caution against reacting to problems by rushing through legislation without due consideration of the full ramifications of any proposed solutions. Looked at this way, the same evidence USA Today used to declare the current Congress to have “the least productive single year in modern history” can be used to say that is has been the most prudent in modern history.

Obviously, it’s not really so simple. Contrary to the logic of the article, Congress does not operate in a vacuum. Laws must also be signed by the President before enacted into law. Fewer laws are thus to be expected in a split government, as the two branches will agree on fewer issues when controlled by different parties. In this way, we see in practice the theory of our system of checks and balances: it sometimes forces politicians into behaving prudently despite their best efforts and intentions to the contrary.

Thursday

18

July 2013

0

COMMENTS

Harry Reid’s Filib(l)uster and the NLRB

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The big news yesterday was that Republicans apparently caved on their opposition to several Obama administration appointees, a deal which will stave off Harry Reid’s plan to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” to end filibusters on presidential appointments. There are two things I find of interest in this whole brouhaha – the administration’s abuse of recess appointments to circumvent the Senate’s role to provide Advice and Consent, and the implications should Harry Reid go through with the “nuclear option.”

Here’s what I previously said about President Obama’s “recess” appointments:

What’s interesting to me is how ridiculous is much of the rhetorical justification for the move. The argument I frequently see goes something like this: Republicans blocked Obama’s appointments, therefore he just had to act.

This line of reasoning renders meaningless the entire concept of Advice and Consent. What is the point of even requiring Senate confirmation if the refusal of the Senate to do so just means that the President should go around them? If the Senate is expected to be nothing more than a rubber stamp, then the whole process is a massive waste of time.

The appointments have since been found by multiple courts to be invalid, the most recent of which being the Fourth Circuit in a ruling issued just yesterday afternoon. The Obama administration has insisted they were legitimate appointments, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Noel Canning.

The exact fallout from the rulings remains uncertain at least until Noel is decided, due largely to the fact that the legality of rulings issued thanks to Obama’s invalid appointments are in question, though many other challenges are currently proceeding.

Bruce McQuain raises an interesting question regarding how the deal to avoid Harry Reid’s bombing of Senate rules plays into the issue. President Obama and Democrats responded to the rulings against the NLRB by insisting they were legal appointments, yet now are promising two new appointments. McQuain writes:

If the Democrats agreed to have two new appointments made to the NLRB, aren’t they at least tacitly admitting the current two appointments are illegal?  And if so, what does that make any rulings the current NLRB made during that time it was illegally constituted?  Common sense says those rulings should be invalidated, don’t you think?

We’ll see how the issue shakes out with upcoming cases, but it’s worth pointing out that this mess is the direct result of the President’s novel insistence that he knows better than the Senate when they are in session or not.

The other issue of interest regarding the deal is the nature and structure of the Senate itself. Harry Reid has essentially said he and 50 other Senators can change the rules at any time to read as they please. If that is going to be the case, why even bother with rules? Just make it a majority rules, anything goes body and be done with it.

This contrasts with the purpose and understanding of the Senate as constructed. Senators were given longer terms and their elections staggered (not to mentioned originally not even determined by popular vote) in order so that it would serve as a counter-weight to the fickle nature of popular opinion that would hold greater sway in the House of Representatives.

Senator Lamar Alexander did a pretty good job with this argument in yesterday’s Washington Times:

This week’s “nuclear option” debate about whether U.S. senators should be permitted to filibuster presidential nominations was not about filibusters.

It was instead about whether a majority of senators should be able to change the rules of the Senate anytime for any purpose. Former Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan once offered the precise trouble with this idea: “If a majority of the Senate can change its rules at any time, there are no rules.”

…Over the years, there have been seven sub-Cabinet nominees blocked by filibuster — three Republicans and four Democrats, all since 1994.

…So, what were Democrats complaining about?For many Democrats, getting rid of the filibuster for nominees is the first step in turning the Senate into an institution where the majority rules lock, stock and barrel.

The Senate would become like the House of Representatives, in which a majority of only one vote could establish a Rules Committee with nine members of the majority and four of the minority. Every meaningful decision would be controlled by the majority. The result: The minority, its views and those it represents would become irrelevant.

It would be an unfortunate development if the Senate were to be turned into just a smaller House of Representatives. For those of us that welcome Congressional gridlock as a means to stay the worst impulses of knee-jerk legislators, the role of the Senate is essential. Though it’s worth pointing out that when the power shifts, many on both sides of the debate will switch sides. It may in the future be Lamar Alexander and his colleagues crying foul over minority obstructionism while Harry Reid demands respect for minority party rights. It wouldn’t be the first time.

 

Saturday

6

July 2013

0

COMMENTS

We Are the Press

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Sen. Dick Durbin recently authored an op-ed calling for some sort of legislation to determine who qualifies for speech protections:

In Branzburg’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no absolute privilege for journalists to refuse to reveal sources to a grand jury. The ruling did, however, seem to recognize a qualified privilege for journalists. Today, some federal courts recognize a qualified privilege for journalists, while others do not.

The vagueness of this decision has led 49 states, including Illinois, to recognize a journalist privilege by statute or common law. These laws state that a protected journalist cannot be compelled to disclose sources or documents unless a judge determines there is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling public interest.

But who should be considered to be a journalist?

The answer to the Senator’s question is stunningly easy: anyone who practices journalism. If a person engages in an act of journalism, regardless of what they do for a living or how frequently they practice journalism, then regarding that act and any issues that arise surrounding it, they are a journalist.

He goes on to state:

For a few years now, a bill to protect journalists from revealing their sources and documents has been making its way through Congress. With no current federal statute recognizing a privilege for journalists, the so-called “media shield” law attempts to establish one.

Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.

I think it is all well and good if Congress is simply attempting to “define…the constitutional and statutory protections … journalists should receive.” Obviously the Constitution contains a broad protection for free speech, one frequently violated, but at some point the exact implications of the right must be applied to particular circumstances. Its limits must be marked. The courts typically play a large role in defining the boundaries or scope of these rights, but they shouldn’t be the only participant in the process. Congress should be involved as well. I don’t know  the particular details of the bill Sen. Durbin references, though I know it’s bipartisan and therefore immediately suspect in my mind as a conspiracy against the people, or whether it is a good or bad attempt to define the boundaries of journalistic protections, and the courts will continue to be there to weigh in if they should be unconstitutionally narrow. But it’s better if our legislative body do the actual legislating, rather than the judiciary.

But it is by no means necessary to reserve the rights of journalists to a privileged class. The very description of the idea leaves a sour taste. Such power in the hands of politicians to decide who deserves the full slate of journalistic rights would render ineffective the most powerful purpose for having a free and independent press: keeping the political class in check.

Sen. Durbin counters with this:

To those who feel politicians shouldn’t define who a journalist is, I’d remind them that they likely live in one of the 49 states, like Illinois, where elected officials have already made that decision.

Even if this is true, it’s no argue for federal legislation. At least with 49 different definitions there is a chance that one or more doesn’t suck. And there is recourse for those in states with bad definitions that would not be available if the same happens at the federal level.

It’s important to remember that the Constitution is not a broad grant of government authority with a few particular carve-outs. It is the opposite – a narrow and particular grant of authority for government to act in the preservation of rights. The First Amendment really ought not even have been necessary as government has no expressly granted authority to violate the rights of speech or the press, which was an argument made at the time against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Its existence has been wrongly interpreted over the years to mean that anything not expressly protected is fair game, and now Sen. Durbin is looking to chip away at even those limited protection by defining down nature of the press. Don’t let him do it.

Wednesday

11

July 2012

1

COMMENTS

We All Lie, Cheat and Steal

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Government Meddling, Liberty & Limited Government

That’s the gist of a TIME piece from last month. And I’m inclined to agree.

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, who teaches at Duke University, is known as one of the most original designers of experiments in social science. Not surprisingly, the best-selling author’s creativity is evident throughout his latest book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. A lively tour through the impulses that cause many of us to cheat, the book offers especially keen insights into the ways in which we cut corners while still thinking of ourselves as moral people.

…“A student told me a story about a locksmith he met when he locked himself out of the house. This student was amazed at how easily the locksmith picked his lock, but the locksmith explained that locks were really there to keep honest people from stealing. His view was that 1% of people would never steal, another 1% would always try to steal, and the rest of us are honest as long as we’re not easily tempted. Locks remove temptation for most people. And that’s good, because in our research over many years, we’ve found that everybody has the capacity to be dishonest and almost everybody is at some point or another.”

Human nature is what it is. Yet some of the greatest philosophical differences between the various political ideologies are rooted in differing views of human nature. Utopian ideologies tend to start from a conception of man that is either good or improvable through social tinkering. Turn of the century movements on both sides of the Atlantic, Progressivism and Fascism, shared this central idea that human nature could be corrected through government manipulation. Classical liberalism, based on Lockean theorizing (which in turn drew from the Hobbesian conception of human nature as violent and competitive) rejected this view. While Locke saw the state as necessary to protect fundamental rights, it is also posed a threat of its own. It would be, after all, run by the same flawed individuals.

Which brings me to this passage from the article:

“People are able to cheat more when they cheat for other people. In some experiments, people cheated the most when they didn’t benefit at all. This makes sense if our ability to be dishonest is increased by the ability to rationalize our behavior. If you’re cheating for the benefit of another entity, your ability to rationalize is enhanced. So yes, it’s easier for an accountant to see fudging on clients’ tax returns as something other than dishonesty. And it’s a concern within companies, since people’s altruistic tendencies allow them to cheat more when it benefits team members.”

With this understanding, is it any surprise that government’s are full of liars and cheats?

This reminded me of a quote from James Madison in Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

It seems as if the left often stops after the first sentence. Men are bad, so we need government. But what about our government of men? The “auxiliary precautions” of which Madison speaks are exactly the restraints on political power which the left has worked so consistently to erode. In expanding the Commerce Clause into meaninglessness, and turning on its head the Constitutional idea of enumerated powers, today’s government has plenty of control of the governed, but little if anything left in place to oblige it to control itself.

Friday

6

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Department of Labor Propaganda

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

I once again find myself forced to draw parallels between the current administration and dictatorial regimes. The inundation of propaganda intended to invade the very thoughts of  the people is a necessary component for any dictator or strongman regime.  And apparently the same is needed in a democratic society when you run not on the soundness of ideas, but instead on empty sloganeering and the iconography of a charismatic leader:

Government-financed political propaganda at the Department of Labor is causing discomfort for some employees.

Signs posted in at least 20 DOL elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Free Beacon has learned. Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: “We all march in our own way.”

“Whether we take to the streets or simply do our work with integrity and commitment here at the U.S. Department of Labor… we are all marching toward the same goals: safe workplaces, fair pay, dignity of the job, secure retirement, and opportunities to make a better life,” the poster states.

It concludes with a call to action.

“I believe in the power of collective action. We all play a role. We all march.”

I believe in the power of individual liberty and free thought, two things which are anathema to the collectivized state.

Thursday

15

March 2012

3

COMMENTS

The United States of Obama

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

So lots of folks are talking about this story out of Florida:

An American flag with President Obama’s image in place of the stars flew over a Florida county’s Democrat headquarters long enough to enrage local veterans who called the altered banner “a disgrace.”

Lake County Democratic Party officials took down the flag, which flew just below a standard Old Glory on the flagpole outside headquarters in Tavares following complaints by local veterans. But merely taking it down wasn’t enough for several local veterans, who said they fought for the flag Betsy Ross made famous, not one with a politician on it.

“It’s absolutely disrespectful,” Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told FoxNews.com. “It’s totally ridiculous. To put somebody’s picture there, to me, it’s a disgrace to do that.”

Nor is this necessarily the first time, but it is probably the most blatantly disrespectful.

I pledge allegiance to Barack, of the United States of Obama

This strikes me as a similar sort of political idolatry typical in dictatorships, albeit not as intense. Whether it be Saddam’s Iraq, Chavez’s Venezuala, Kim’s North Korea, or countless other contemporary and historical examples, folks living in a tyrannical society typically cannot escape the visage of their beloved leaders. This is not to say that Obama is or will be a dictator, but the parallels raise interesting questions.

The practice seems particularly common among leftwing dictatorships, though not exclusively so, whether they be communist or populist. Still, I wonder why this is and have come up with an hypothesis of sorts.

A common trait among most leftwing ideologies is a rejection of individualism for collective identity. The self is not the most important identity, the community is and it is typically represented by the state. But while the state may be the most important identity, they are hard to identify with at an emotional level. Enter the charismatic leader.

The leader provides a human face to represent the state, itself representing the community. The people can then emotionally adopt the leader as identity, since they have none of their own. This is why these leaders are capable of being so intensely loved by many while also being so cruel. Once you’ve made that emotional investment, the leader becomes unquestionable.

It is disturbing to see any folks, however many they may be, look at Obama in this light. He is not the state, and the state is not, or ought not be, our identity. We are free individuals.

Monday

20

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Is Iceland’s Constitutional Crowd-Sourcing a Good Idea?

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Iceland is writing a new Constitution, and is taking a decidedly 21st approach to the task:

Iceland is months deep in a project to crowdsource the writing of a new constitution. The recovering European nation’s existing constitution is essentially a carbon copy of Denmark’s, Iceland claiming independence from Denmark in 1944. There were slight adjustments, like replacing the word “king” with “president,” but after the financial crisis that brought Iceland’s economy to its knees in 2008, the country’s decided to start from scratch. The approach uses a combination of social media platforms–Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr–to gather suggestions from the citizens, and members of a consitutional council post drafts on their website every week.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. On the one hand, I like seeing the power of new technology being applied to old problems, political or otherwise. This will certainly increase the number of people involved in drafting their new Constitution than otherwise would have been possible. On the other hand, the big question is whether this approach will produce a better document.

I honestly don’t have an answer to that question. I can see potential dangers in popular passions having too much sway, but the process is not actually democratic (long understood, since Aristotle, to be a bad form of government compared to constitutional republics), as the public is merely giving their input to a constitutional council. How much they are listening is not known to me. Alternatively, it may be that more voices will strengthen the document by enhancing the likelihood of spotting weaknesses, or by settling the question of public interpretation (wherein what is intended is not always what is later understood) up front – that is, if the public is going to interpret Clause X to mean Y, but you really want them to understand it to mean Z, you can find that out before the document is finalized and correct it.

Ultimately, the content of the document will matter far more than the novelty of its construction, and the form of the government need not necessarily be related to that method. A purely democratic method could produce a solid representational document. Likewise, a document written by representatives, as the US Constitution was, could turn out to lack the necessary checks and balances and be overly vulnerable to democratic passions.

For what it’s worth, I scanned a draft that was posted online and wasn’t particularly impressed. With the caveat that I was reading a translation, there were a number of potential ambiguities I saw and a lot I didn’t like ideologically, such as inclusion of minutiae that could leave the country unable to adapt to changing circumstances, as well as the outlining of various “positive rights” – which means the “right” to be given something by the government, i.e. taxpayers. I don’t live in Iceland, and there’s no reason why they must accept my view that real rights can only be so-called “negative rights” derived from natural rights theory, but I just don’t see that form of government being sustainable. But to each their own.

Though if anyone starts taking Fareed Zakaria seriously – something which I caution against out of the principle that fluff nonsense should not be listened to – and tries to do the same here in America, I’ll have a lot more to say on that matter.

← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives