Scientia Media

My Blog Has Moved

2009-10-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

You can find the new and improved blog at http://www.scientiamedia.com/.

Healthcare and Liberal Thought

2009-09-26T22:50:00.001-07:00

It has been a while since my last post. Classes started a few days afterwards and have dominated my time outside of work. There have been lots of readings on Metaphysics and Epistemology, which are always tough with so many abstract concepts that must be absorbed. I promised a follow up on The Problem of “Other People’s Money”, but will preempt that for now in order to further refine philosophical views on the healthcare debate. In particular, over the past month, I have continually heard mostly emotional arguments from liberals in favor of government run healthcare or some form of a “public option,” with the arguments generally parroting that of the Obama administration, who argue that the rising costs of healthcare are unsustainable, and thus we cannot continue with the “status quo.” On the former point, I think most of us are aware on both sides of the political spectrum that the current path is unsustainable. On the latter point, I can’t think of anyone who believes we should continue with the status quo. Somehow, however, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi can’t seem to separate the fact that someone who opposes their proposed solutions can also agree with them on those two points, yet this triumvirate conflates anyone’s opposition to their proposals with a necessary belief that those opposed don’t want to see things change. So far they have continued to repeatedly promote such flawed logic, demonstrating that the era of post-partisan politics has yet to begin.

In my last post, I discussed how charitable giving patterns indicate persuasively that liberals, who are particularly adept at making moral arguments as to why the government should do this or that to stamp out greed and bring equality to the people, give far less of their time or money towards charitable activities, regardless of income, that could actually help the human condition. They simply expect the government to solve all social ills, instead of rolling up their sleeves to help solve problems or opening their wallets to those who will. While there is no direct connection of charitable giving to the debate on healthcare, I would argue that a key relationship is their tacit belief that only government can solve the healthcare problem and that it will actually produce a viable remedy. The moral argument in this case is that everyone has a fundamental right to healthcare, but are being denied that right due to the greed of insurance companies who Obama likes to say are making “record profits” through unnecessarily high premiums. Yet as an industry, health insurance companies have only a 3.3% profit margin, less than the 4.6% average for all businesses in the country, as reported by Karl Rove in a recent Wall Street Journal article. Rove goes on to note that drug companies enjoy an average 17% profit margin. But even that is less than software companies, which earn a 22% profit margin on average. So Obama is simply wrong on insurance company profits, just as he was wrong when he demonized oil companies for making “windfall profits” during his campaign. Yet I have not seen a single liberal challenge his dishonesty in either case.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to liberals that Medicare and Social Security are both going bankrupt, and that between these two government programs there is over $100 trillion (yes, trillions) in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, we have an unprofitable Amtrak train service and a Postal Service that is always flirting with bankruptcy. Yet they want the government to either take over or control an industry that represents roughly 1/6 of the entire economy? There must be other factors at work here than simply wanting healthcare for all Americans, since it would be foolhardy to believe that government, with its track record of failure, could become a viable and competitive player in health insurance. In fact, government regulations have inhibited competition in the health insurance market, thus contributing to the rising costs of healthcare. State regulations won’t allow insurance to be sold across state lines, so there tend to be monopolies within the states, lessening competition. There is also the need for tort reform so doctors don't pass the high cost of malpractice on to patients or order unnecessary tests playing defensive medicine. Another problem is that corporations get favored tax treatment that small companies and individuals don't enjoy. Further, states impose regulations that put specific mandates on what insurance companies must offer. This is why you can't pick and choose from a menu of choices that could lower your premium, as you can with car insurance. So even though there are a number of relatively simple things that can bring down healthcare costs without the government becoming a player and taking on debt, such commonsense measures aren’t even on the table.

A huge factor in healthcare costs is the personal health choices that people make on a daily basis. Americans smoke, exercise too little, and eat too much. Thus, heart disease and diabetes are contributing to skyrocketing premiums as insurance companies try to cover ever higher costs, particularly as people approach end of life. As well, people demand more and more technology to keep them alive. This costs money and drives up premiums. So how come all of the blame is placed on the feet of the insurance companies, and none at the feet of the insured? Has it been conclusively demonstrated that all or most insurance companies are greedy and systematically bilking the insured? While I don’t believe that case has been made, I am fully aware there are some insurance companies who attempt to maximize profits through the practice of rescission, and also “cherry-picking” the most profitable customers. Yet rescission is a violation of state laws unless the customer intentionally lied or omitted pertinent medical history. Cherry-picking is something the states should take action on. If an insurance company can bring in someone with a pre-existing condition and keep the actuarial pool integral, they should be required to do so. But they should not be forced to take on all customers, since this could destabilize the pool for all. For those that don’t qualify for insurance, high risk health insurance pools should be made available at the state level (as some states have done), which is a reasonable display of compassion provided by taxpayers.

I haven’t said much new in this post, but have mostly summed up thoughts that I have outlined over the past several posts. What I want to emphasize is that liberals should cease advocating government redistribution of wealth and being paranoid about greed in the capitalist system, particularly when they benefit from our capitalist system as do conservatives, even holding a slight income advantage. Instead of calling on government to do all of the heavy lifting, my admonition is if liberals truly want to make a difference in the health insurance market and are concerned about profits, they should be proactive and start non-profit health insurance companies themselves (which would have the added benefit of creating much-needed private sector jobs), instead of reflexively looking to government. Or instead of swallowing the government’s currently proposed solutions without any thought as to its far-reaching implications, ask what can be done to simply improve the existing system before advocating game-changing legislation that could do tremendous harm while doing very little good. This is not the type of legislation that should be crammed through along party lines, affecting each and every member of society, when the vast majority of Americans are happy with the healthcare system as it is now, but recognize there needs to be sensible reform. What is currently being proposed by the Obama administration and the Democratic-led Congress is far from sensible, if not downright irresponsible. And the rush to legislate only reinforces my belief.

The Problem of “Other People’s Money”

2009-08-24T19:56:00.001-07:00

This post is a continuation of my previous blog on who really cares about the needy, as I continue to work through the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, by Arthur C. Brooks. I want to work through the third chapter, appropriately titled “Other People’s Money.” Brooks notes that as one might think, politicians are uniquely situated when it comes to handing out favors at no expense to themselves (in other words, at your expense but with no thanks to you). But he also notes that we see the same behavior in vast swaths of “regular” people as well. A significant number of Americans, and Europeans as well, consider themselves charitable simply because they support policies of income redistribution through taxation (my emphasis added). And this does have an affect on private giving. One would assume that those people most concerned and vocal about economic inequality would be the most likely to give to charity. But that is wrong. The data demonstrates that for many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own. People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not. Even if the policies they support do not come into effect, they are still far less likely to donate to charity. For many Americans, Brooks, argues, political opinions are substitute for personal checks, but people who value economic freedom, and who are opposed to forced income distribution, are far more charitable.

The reality is the political left is effectively conceding a tremendous amount of moral authority in deed to the right wing when it comes to charity, while their words indicate otherwise. In 1996, a large sample of Americans was asked to respond to this statement: “The government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” Forty-three percent of respondents disagreed with this statement; 33 percent agreed. However, when it comes to charity, these two groups were radically different. Not only were those who disagreed significantly more likely to give money to charity than those who agreed, they also gave away, on average, four times as much money per year on religious giving, and three and a half times as much to nonreligious charities. A 2001 poll asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement that “the government has a basic responsibility to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.” A large majority (75 percent) agreed with the statement. But the 25 percent who disagreed were more likely than the others to give money both to secular and religious causes. Even when controls are set for income, education, religion, age, gender, marital status, race, and political views, people in favor of forced income redistribution are privately less charitable than those who oppose it, regardless of how much money they earn.

So why does support for government income redistribution efforts suppress charity? According to Brooks, the most straightforward answer comes when this support translate into policy—when governments tax away people’s earnings and pay for services that might otherwise be supported privately. The truth is government spending on charitable causes leads people to give less to charity. Not just liberals, but everyone everyone gives less privately when the government gives more. Brooks believes the most likely reason for this is because people tend to see government aid and private charity as substitutes. Economists, notes Brooks, have a name for this phenomenon: the “public goods crowding out effect,” which he states is a potent theory for opponents of “big government” because it suggests that taxing and spending may have less net impact on citizens’ welfare than imagined. Numerous studies have demonstrated that a dollar in government spending on nonprofit activities displaces up to 50 cents in private giving. The highest level of crowding out occurs in assistance to the poor and other kinds of social welfare services, and indication that government social spending for the needy benefits recipients far less than its face value. For a charity that is reliant on both public funding and private giving, this means that nothing is “free” about government support, as it not only lessens the effect of fund-raising efforts, but also makes an organization more dependent on the government.

“Crowding out,” notes Brooks, only explains lower personal giving if the government is taxing citizens and redistributing the income to people and organizations in need. Yet if increased government spending is only an idea or a political position, should it have no affect on giving behavior? In other words, I might stop giving if the government actually picks up support for my favorite charity, but would I stop just because I think the the government should do so? The evidence is that actions are based on beliefs, and not actual policies. It matters little whether the government is actually redistributing income and lessening inequality—what appears to displace charity is a person’s support for these policies. People who think the government should redistribute income more are less likely to donate to charity than people who don’t think so. Brooks argues this is nothing more than substituting political opinions for private donations. The opinions may or may not be sound, but the giving is conspicuously absent. Politically, this is a left-right issue—because income redistribution is a left-right issue in America. Although 77 percent of self-proclaimed liberals say the government should redistribute income more than at present, only 24 percent of conservatives say this. So Brooks further argues that substituting a political belief for personal sacrifice shows a lack of tangible personal responsibility toward others in need and represents a “deeply troubling relationship” between ideology and personal action on the political left.

So what is placing America’s far left so far outside the charitable mainstream and exempting so many of them from a sense of personal charitable responsibility? According to Brooks, the American hard left has developed a resistance to charity, as they believe the existence of charity is evidence of an unjust society, and should thus be made obsolete by government redistribution. The thinking is that in an ideal world, there is no charity because there is no need for it. Clearly, this is an unrealistic worldview, states Brooks, because our needs are constantly changing, and above basic subsistence levels, the perception of “need” has mostly to do with what an individual sees others as having. And history has not been kind to this worldview. Collectivist systems have been tried, most notably in Central and Eastern Europe, and they have failed. The governments of the Communist bloc ran inefficient systems that ultimately collapsed under their own bureaucratic weight. In some circles, particularly in American academia, a strong philosophy abhors charity as just another tool of power. Usually, according to Brooks, this philosophy stems from the core tenets of Marxism, which teaches: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The basic Marxist argument about charity is that the rich give charitably because they can, but their actions are inherently corrupt because their control over the resources they enjoy is illegitimate. The problem with this position is the assumption that givers are always rich, and recipients are always poor. It is a common assumption, but it is wrong.

Income inequality, argues Brooks, is a core liberal issue and this is the link between redistribution and charity. This is not to say that no one on the right cares about economic inequality, but it is is the issue that most strongly separates liberals and conservatives today. These differences on whether income inequality is a problem lead to differences in what to do about it, and whether to forcibly redistribute income or not is what represents the wedge between liberal and conservative giving. Those who see inequality in America as a major problem, which is more of an issue for upper-income liberals than lower-income people of all political persuasions, usually want to solve it through government action. In the next blog, we will continue discussing just why liberals worry so much about income inequality.

Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth.

2009-08-20T09:15:00.001-07:00

I am currently reading the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, by Arthur C. Brooks. Brooks notes that when it comes to charity, America is two nations—one charitable, and the other uncharitable. Most Americans are generous, compassionate people. However, he states, there is also an identifiable slice of the population that does not donate to people in need; does not volunteer; does not give in informal ways; does not even feel compassion toward others. Brooks was surprised and disturbed by many of the facts and trends that emerged in the course of his research. His analysis is based entirely on data from years of analysis on the best national and international datasets available on charity, computational horsepower, and the past work of dozens of scholars.

The data indicates that political conservatives are, on average, more personally charitable than liberals (for example, in 2000, conservatives gave 30% more money to charity than liberals, spanning every income class, yet liberals earned an average of 6% more in income). He notes this a startling conclusion, but that's not the end of the story. Conservatives aren't more charitable than liberals simply because their politics somehow make them inherently virtuous, it is the worldview and lifestyle of charitable people that is usually more in sync with the right than they are with the left. This is based on four forces in modern American life that he has discovered are primarily responsible for making people charitable. These forces are religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepeneurism. Lest anyone think Brooks is biased, his expectation when he began his research was that political liberals would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. His political and cultural roots were decidedly liberal, but his research changed his views in his personal search for the truth. Like Brooks, my search is also for the truth, based to the best of my ability on evidence, rational thought, and natural law, all of which led me to my Christian faith.

Here is an excerpt from the book, which is highly instructive about who gives and who just talks a mean game:

Politicians are uniquely situated, one might think, when it comes to handing out favors at no expense to themselves. But we see the same behavior in vast swaths of "regular" people as well. A significant number of Americans (and Europeans as well) consider themselves charitable simply because they support policies of income redistribution through taxation. And this affects their private giving.

The relationship between charitable giving and ideas about income redistribution is by no means obvious. In fact, before I started the research for this book, I assumed that those people most concerned and vocal about economic inequality would be the most likely to give to charity. But I was wrong. Instead, I found a large amount of data all pointing in the same direction: For many people, the desire to donate other people's money displaces the act of giving one's own. People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not. Even if the policies they support do not come into effect, they are still far less likely to donate to charity. For many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks; but people that value economic freedom, and thus bridle against forced income redistribution, are far more charitable.

In this chapter, we will see that charity and conservative views on forced income redistribution go hand in hand. As such, through its economic policies and preferences, the political left is effectively conceding a tremendous amount of moral authority to the right wing when it comes to charity.

So there you have it. There are those who put their money where their mouth is, and those who don't but are happy to offer up your money as a means for assuming the moral mantle. Based on their reported charitable charitable giving, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden fit the latter description, while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been exemplary in fitting the former, in contrast to what many believe. I would highly recommend the book, which is a short, quick read, and will post more excerpts as I work through the book. I'm looking forward to your comments on this post.

Is There a Moral Argument for Nationalized Healthcare?

2009-08-20T09:14:00.001-07:00

I want to give a shout out to Rich Bordner, a friend and fellow philosophy student at Talbot. Rich has a wonderful and insightful blog with a real edge. He is a young man who loves God, and making an impact on people's lives is his passion. He is currently a high school teacher, which provides him with insights that make for provocative and often humorous posts at his blog, The Pugnacious Irishman. Rich sees where society is going because he engages with the next generation on a regular basis. So be sure to check out Rich's blog, who is newly married and back from his honeymoon. He's also back to writing, but we'll have to forgive him if his blog production drops off for a while (or will it, Rich?).

Rich just posted a blog titled Breeding Passive Moochers, with a title indicative of his inimitable humor. In this post he provides perspectives on preparing for his marriage and personal responsibility, which he then weaves into the current healthcare debate. Rich quotes a recent Facebook post from the Acton Institute that I wanted to also share because it rebuts the "it's the moral thing to do" argument that liberals advance as a reason to support government run-healthcare:

Here are a couple of reasons why nationalized health care is in fact not a morally pure as proponents would like us to believe.

Handing something off to the state so citizens don’t have to take responsibility for themselves and others doesn’t doesn’t really contribute to the moral fabric of a society.

We love to talk about solidarity and the common good but too often solidarity gets turned into “let the state take care of it.” A broader and I would argue morally rich concept of the solidarity and the common good would look to human flourishing and a rich civil society and turn to the state only as the last resort.

It hurts the common good to have the state take over responsibilities that we should bear ourselves or for our fellow citizens. A large nanny state contributes to the “individualism” that Tocqueville warned about: a turning into self that isolates us from everyone but our nearest circle. If the state does everything for us then we don’t need to care about our brothers and sisters and fellow citizens. This means the breakdown of guess what–solidarity. Solidarity is the driving principle behind subsidiarity, voluntary organizations, and charity. Love of neighbor should prompt us to help each other not pass it it off to the state.

From a moral point of view, having the state take over health care breaks down solidarity and harms the common good.

This article echoes what I have discussed in previous blog posts regarding the Catholic social concept of subsidiarity, which argues that societal problems should be solved from the "inside out," with government, particularly at the federal level, being the problem solver of last resort that avoids encroaching on the solidarity of lower levels. We must first look to family, and then to the church and charitable organizations before looking to government. At times, there is a role for local and state government, but if we had a truly healthy society, there would be little need for government involvement in assisting those truly in need. There should never be a need for federal involvement because that means there has been a breakdown at all other levels, which should be a cause for serious alarm instead of an opportunity for the federal government to get involved in things for which it is limited constitutionally and is not particularly good at in the first place.

Honestly, I believe taxpayers who clamor for more federal government involvement do so because it's easier for money to simply disappear from their paychecks instead of them becoming personally involved in local charitable activities, taking the time to write checks to their favorite charities, or for those with the wherewithal, creating non-profits that meet community needs. They feel taking the moral high road is somehow consistent with being completely passive, leaving the responsibility on government to solve society's ills. What they don't realize is their lack of contribution in the first place is the missing ingredient necessary to building a better and more equitable society . In other words, it is the moral failure to deliver solutions at the local or state level that ultimately leads to the moral argument demanding solutions at the federal level. The problem is the moral imperative has been lost long before the problem winds its way to the federal level.

“Public Option” Supporters Prove Ignorance Not So Bliss

2009-08-11T23:30:00.001-07:00

I was recently involved in a Facebook conversation that involved ardent supporters of the “public option.” The reasoning was, as I expected, overly simplistic and highly optimistic that the government, by offering a public option, would simply provide one more “free market” option to a myriad of other existing options, thus stimulating competition and bringing down “absurdly high rates” (as one public option hopeful put it). When I asked specifically how adding this option to 1,300+ existing options would stimulate competition and bring down rates, there was no reply. Basically, I think those who support a public option have squishy good feelings about it, but lack an understanding of what a public option would entail, and other than knowing that premiums must be paid, have little understanding of how insurance works. For starters, a public option doesn’t have to compete, because it has the coercive power of the federal government to decide how much it will confiscate from the public through taxes to subsidize the option it is offering. Health insurance companies don’t have this luxury. They must offer a competitively priced product to consumers based on calculated risk and cost, which is purchased on a voluntary basis, and make a decent profit for shareholders (for the record, there is no truth to reported “record profits”). Furthermore, the taxes they pay provide the funds the government will use to subsidize its public option in order to compete against the insurance companies. If public option supporters don’t see that as a rigged system, then their ignorance is indeed not so bliss.

At this point, it would be instructive to offer a short primer on insurance as as a means to rebut the demonization of the industry by legislators and special interests promoting the public option. Wikipedia provides an excellent definition of insurance as “the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss.” Insurance is a form of risk management, based on statistics and probability, that pools together the premiums of the many insured, with the premiums used to fund accounts reserved for later payment of claims—in theory for a relatively few claimants—and for overhead costs. As long as an insurer maintains adequate funds set aside for anticipated losses (reserves), the remaining margin is an insurer's profit. The Wikipedia article sites seven principles of insurance, but I will focus on three that are germane to this discussion. First, the larger the pool, the greater the probability that actual results will meet with expected results, due to the “law of large numbers.” Basically, you need similar risk spread out over a large number of people in order to have a reasonable assurance that the number and amount of claims will meet the expected distribution, allowing the pool to maintain integrity.

Second, premiums must be affordable. If the premium is so large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely anyone will buy insurance. The premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. This demonstrates that insurers are engaging in calculated but warranted risk. The premium is not solely based on charging as much as the market will bear in order to maximum profits, though the insurance company must obviously turn a profit which is in their interest as well as the insured who expect there will be enough reserves to ensure payment of claims. Finally, there must be limited risk of catastrophically large losses. In this case, if the same event can cause losses to numerous policyholders of the same insurer, the ability of that insurer to issue policies becomes constrained, not by factors surrounding the individual characteristics of a given policyholder, but by the factors surrounding the sum of all policyholders so exposed. So insurers must limit their exposure to a loss from a single event to a small amount of the insured. A classic example of this is earthquake insurance. With respect to health insurance, this may apply to people with the propensity for certain types of diseases that could produce exceptionally large claims. There are some that may take issue with this principle, but again, it is in place in order to maintain the integrity of the risk pool for the benefit of the insurance company and the insured.

Now there are some insurance providers that do unethical things such as: 1) dropping the insured who become sick and thus expensive, even though their premiums adequately reflect the risk for bringing that person into the pool, 2) refusing someone coverage for a predisposition to a disease they don't have now, when they have statistical room to bring that person into the pool without putting the pool at risk, and 3) refusing people with pre-existing conditions that could be brought into the pool with reasonable actuarial risk. This is where I think government does need to step in to ensure win-win scenarios, and no further. In the first example, this is clearly a win-lose proposition, while the last two are “judgment calls” that all too often deny coverage based ostensibly on maximizing profits. Yet many of those in favor of the public option believe government should force insurance companies to take all of those with pre-existing conditions and also cap premiums to some arbitrary multiplier, not considering how disastrous this would be for all the other members in the pool. This would further encourage people to purchase insurance after they get sick instead of getting into a pool as early as possible which would be in accord with the first principle of large numbers discussed above. Moreover, there would be no incentive for anyone to live a responsible and healthy lifestyle if they could simply acquire insurance at a an arbitrary, government-forced premium whenever they get sick, and then drop it when they get well.

Regarding the public option, there is already Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP coverage for children. So we already cover the truly needy, and a good number of the "47 million uninsured" are eligible for this coverage. So I believe society is already extending great compassion. It is arguable, though, just how many of the uninsured can afford to be insured but choose not to purchase coverage. There are myriads of choices that people make on a day to day basis that determine their ability to get coverage, so I would argue the best thing we can do is to look for ways that we can make coverage more affordable and accessible without resorting to a public option that will only bring the inefficiency, bureaucracy, and politicization that will be endemic to a government-run option. There are several commonsense reform proposals advanced by Republicans in Congress such as equalization of tax treatment between corporations and individuals or small businesses, wellness programs that will lower costs by avoiding disease, tort reform, medical-saving accounts, and allowing insurance pools to cross state lines. Against the rhetoric of President Obama, no one is suggesting that nothing be done. It simply makes more sense to implement sensible reforms to the existing market-based system than to create another government program.

A strong argument for not creating another government program is that there are few things the federal government can do effectively and efficiently. The military is one thing the government does effectively, but hardly efficiently. Other examples are the Postal Service, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who played a key role in the current economic crisis), Medicare, and Social Security. Medicare will be exhausted (i.e., bankrupt) by 2019. It's not actuarially sound, and neither is Social Security, which is a glorified Ponzi scheme that will begin paying out more than it receives in 2017, ultimately going bankrupt in 2041. As I stated previously, the government doesn't have any pressure to be competitive, efficient, or actuarially sound because it has the power to tax. At this time, government should be spending its time fixing Medicare and Social Security, whose total unfunded liability is over $100 trillion, instead of trying to get in the game of a public insurance option when it has failed miserably at these two programs. The public options offered by the states of Massachusetts and Tennessee have not brought down costs, but costs have ballooned instead. So if the public option hasn't proven efficacious at the state level, why would we want to pursue this at the national level where there is no recourse if the result is bad? At least in the case of a state program, one would have the option to move to another state.

When one compares how we live today in America to the way we lived 100 years ago, the differences are astounding. Our capitalist system has provided us with transportation for virtually everyone, air conditioning, refrigerators, jet travel, vacations, including life-saving medicines and procedures. Yet we complain so much about what we don’t have as if we were meant to have everything we think we deserve, and believe we have an entitlement to the latest advances in medicine and technology simply because they exist. I don't understand it. We are truly blessed, yet when we can't get what we want, we automatically think that government can solve our problems when it simply can't. We must realize that everything that government gives is taken from people who could better deploy capital in a more efficient manner that helps themselves, their families, and their communities. That includes those who take the risk to start and run private insurance companies, which have provided outstanding, market-based solutions that have vastly improved our quality of life. Yes, there is much room for improvement of the current healthcare system, but it is something we should celebrate as a true blessing, instead of a scourge on society, while implementing measures that would provide lower costs and broader accessibility for all.

Healthcare: We Have Met the Enemy, and it is Us

2009-07-23T22:24:00.001-07:00

I’m sure that all who are following the debate over government-sponsored medical care have heard a plurality of pundits, so this post is designed to make a few points that I think need to be considered in the debate that aren’t discussed enough. There is a lot of scapegoating directed at the insurance industry by the current administration in order to sell the benefits of government-run healthcare, which is unfortunate, as it is the same old demonizing tactic used last year against the oil companies during the presidential campaign: the charge of “record profits.” In a capitalist society, profits are a good thing, with record profits being even better since it would mean the economy is growing and prosperity is spreading. In this particular case, however, health insurance companies aren’t enjoying profits that are setting any new records. And they are not the enemy even if they were. Just as with auto and home insurance policies, health insurance companies allow us to pool risk and gain access to medical care and drugs that would otherwise not be affordable except for the very wealthy. The current administration would have us believe that since the system is not perfect, it should be completely dismantled and run by government bureaucrats. Instead, I feel we should be thankful that we have a system which works well for most, but requires commonsense reforms such as those proposed by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Senator Mitch McConnell.

One problem with health insurance is that over the course of several decades a "middle man" (the insurance company) has come between the patient and the doctor, thus affecting market dynamics for better or for worse. Yet if government further gets in the middle it will only make things more complex, not less, because now you're adding a political component, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen when healthcare becomes political. Unlike house or car insurance, health insurance is highly personal and something we take advantage of on a more or less regular basis, depending on our current state of health. We have come to expect more and more things to be covered such as the latest medicines and procedures, and it has also become a game of nickel and dime things instead of just big things. Patients and doctors apply pressure to insurance companies to cover sex-enhancing pills, massages and other elective options that are probably better paid for out of pocket. Naturally, premiums rise as insurance companies cover more medicines and procedures. So insurance companies, which must have enough reserves to pay claims and make profits that allow them to invest in their businesses are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t proposition when it comes to setting practical limits for what they can cover and what they can’t.

A huge issue is the fact that many Americans don't lead healthy lifestyles, yet expect the modern miracles of medicine to save the day. Moreover, we expect these miracles to cost nothing more and have come to feel we have a "right" to new medicines or technology simply because they are available. Yet when the insurance company won’t pay for these miracles or raises its premiums to do so they are at fault when in large part we have brought many illnesses on ourselves through our own poor choices. I am so tired of people complaining about how greedy insurance companies are, because if we didn't have them, we would have to pay these costs out of our own pockets, which most of us couldn’t (or wouldn’t) do. Yet it is us, when we abuse insurance through poor life choices, that have caused premium costs to increase since we demand more while living unhealthy lifestyles that drive up those costs. In fact, preventable illnesses are at the very core of spiraling health costs in America, most directly related to smoking and obesity (due to poor diet and lack of regular exercise). So instead of pointing the finger at insurance companies, I think we should begin pointing the finger at ourselves for living lifestyles that unnecessarily drive up healthcare costs. In large part, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

An important thing we must realize is that all of the new medicines and technologies that make us well or keep us alive cost money to develop. Pharmaceutical companies must literally invest hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and must absorb the cost of drugs that don’t make it to market. This is not purely science as drugs must go through painstaking clinical trials in order to receive FDA approval. If pharmaceutical companies were not investing their “record” profits on breakthrough drugs, then there would be no new miracle drugs. So we shouldn’t be upset that pharmaceutical companies make big profits if we are looking forward to the next breakthrough drug to cure or treat an existing or future disease. As well, if insurance companies don't make a profit, then they can't pay claims, and since insurance is based on actuarial tables that aren't perfect, there is always the chance that some new disease comes along (such as HIV/AIDS) that causes profits to go down and premiums to possibly go up. Or there may be a new “must have” breakthrough technology that makes premiums go up further. So we have to understand that insurance companies are taking on qualified risk and are not just kicking back reaping profits. It is a tough business.

In general, healthcare access and cost presents a very complex problem that requires sensible, yet imperfect, reform. More competition between insurance providers and sensible regulation is what is needed (such as not allowing insurance companies to simply “drop” existing customers because they contract a disease that is expensive to treat, when the whole purpose of actuarial tables was to account for this risk). I am deeply conflicted about forcing insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions since these can "break the bank" actuarially and affect others in the insured pool adversely. If the government takes on healthcare, then taxpayers will pick up huge costs as there will be no practical limit to the care that people will lobby the government for since they see their fellow taxpayers as a bottomless pool of money. Of course, the government would have to ration care based on decisions from bureaucrats in Washington, instead of actuarial tables and competition in the open market. So this is all the more reason for the federal government to keep away from becoming an insurance provider beyond the current tax-funded Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs (in fact, it should get out of these programs altogether and remand to the states since this is not the proper function of the federal government in the first place).

Fundamentally, I think insurers should stop covering unnecessary things such as sex-enhancing pills and massages, to name just a couple. Insurers should offer a basic, catastrophic package for anyone, which would be attractive to young people that don't use healthcare very much and who are also willing to pay if they do need something other than catastrophic care. Yet these same people that can afford healthcare should not be able to simply go to an ER when they get sick and expect someone else to pay for it. It is a grossly inefficient way to receive care. So I would be open to an individual mandate such as that for car insurance, where you set the deductible level with a private insurer that provides some level of reasonable options based on risk profile. Those at certain poverty levels should be eligible for government assistance with premiums (where they would pay something, and never nothing), while those who are unemployed should keep their existing policy with government assistance, possibly at a lower level of coverage. The idea is that everyone gets covered and stays covered.

Finally, I believe that once someone is in an insurance pool, they should be able to stay in that pool without worry of being dropped, but still have the opportunity to move to another pool if it is more cost effective for them. This would at least set a baseline for moving forward so we can get everyone on some type of coverage without a government takeover. For those not covered with pre-existing conditions, possibly we could expand the Medicare and Medicaid pool on a one-time basis as a part of the baseline, instead of forcing them on insurers. Beyond that, as citizens we will be responsible for gaining access to health care among the private and existing public options available depending on the personal situation. Existing employer-provided plans should be portable, so that when one leaves the company their insurance goes with them at the same cost, and an option would be provided to move down to a more affordable level if the person cannot afford it, or whose next employer cannot provide the same level of benefit. Now I am realistic, as I don’t expect an ideal solution since humans are involved, but I do expect a better free market solution than the one currently available. Those who listen to the siren song of government are unfortunately, I believe, looking for perfection, but will only find disappointment when they find that what they’re hoping for won’t live up to expectations.

Closer to Truth?

2009-07-19T19:35:00.001-07:00

This past week I had a married couple as guests at my home, and as usual when they come to visit we invariably get around to discussing religion since Philosophy of Religion & Ethics is my current course of study. I’m not sure if they are agnostics or simply skeptics, though my guess is that it is more the latter. Both are highly intelligent and moral folks who are concerned with living good lives, being kind to others, donating to good causes, and being loving, attentive parents to their young children. But they tend to look strongly askance at anything of a religious nature, though they admit there are some good things that come out of religion that are beneficial to society. Fundamentally, John and Sharon (not their real names), are skeptical that any of my efforts in studying religion necessarily allow me to get any closer to truth than anyone else, no matter how much I may study. Why do they conclude this, and am I simply wasting precious time and energy studying philosophy? Since they both feel there are other people who study as much as I do yet come to different conclusions, their logic is that we cannot get to truth since everyone doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions concerning the existence of God, or further that Christ is indeed the Son of God who died on a cross and resurrected on the third day.

At core, John and Sharon have the view that what may be true for me, and others that accept Christ, may not be true for others who accept some other religion such as Islam or Hinduism, or who simply conclude that all religions are false. But it’s okay if it’s true for me and provides some benefit, and I shouldn’t be naive in believing that my truth might actually apply to them or others. I didn’t explain that this view is the typical postmodern thinking that Americans have gradually accepted over the past 40-50 years, which posits that there are no overarching, universal truths. Truth, according to postmodern thought is simply a social construct and a creation of the human mind. Yet John and Sharon admit that in their everyday lives, they behave as if there are universal truths. They feel that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, and that it is not okay to abuse children. But if there is no such thing as objective truth, then why would they live their lives as if it is so, even asserting there are indeed some moral imperatives as just described? It is wholly inconsistent to on the one hand believe that everything is relative and evolving, while at the same time making statements as to how a certain state of affairs ought or should be when things are constantly undergoing change. If everything is relative and truth is what you make it, then the words ought or should are in effect meaningless when used in communication.

While John and Sharon are skeptical there is objective truth, and that Christianity could even accord with truth, it is an interesting thing we all agreed that the moral sense of right and wrong are fairly universal within the human race. Even those who choose to do wrong (presuming they are normally functioning) know implicitly what is the good or right thing to do, but simply choose not to do the good or right thing because they have the free will to reject it. This sense of moral order in the universe is, in theological terms, called common grace, since it may be apprehended by all and is common to all humankind. So herein we may reasonably conclude that even though there is nothing we can know exhaustively, common grace can be reasonably construed (in an epistemic sense) as an objective truth, and is true wholly independent of whether we give it cognitive assent or not. In essence, I’m arguing that on this basis, John and Sharon would be wise to conclude that there are indeed some objective moral truths that are not just true for some, but true for all, including them. In other words, truth is truth, and truth has no dependency on them, yet it is there for them to ascertain should they choose to accept it. I feel they sense this, but are somehow afraid of the consequences of accepting this view.

Now as this pertains to Christianity specifically, as John stated, the truth of a tangerine resting on the kitchen island was readily apparent to him as some form of objective truth, since he could see it, but he has no way to verify there is salvation in Christ, and further since Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other scholars have concluded that there is indeed no salvation in Christ, then all I am offering is a biased opinion based on personal inclinations instead of some degree of objective knowledge based on diligent study and reflection. Where I believe John’s logic fails is that he doesn’t understand that all of these religions make fundamentally conflicting truth claims in a number of areas, with the possibility that all are false, or one is true. John, Sharon, and I all agreed that there is adequate testimony, both internal to the bible and external to it, that Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross. They both acknowledged that the Bible, as a book of history, has been proven to be amazingly accurate with respect to archaeological finds. So the only point of contention was whether Christ actually raised from dead as eyewitness testimony reported. If he did not, then this naturally lends more credence to the Jewish and Muslim religions (though Islam borrows heavily from Christianity). Since Hinduism is entirely based on myth, there is no particular reason to believe it is true to begin with. So I believe I’m on firm ground that Christianity is at least a reasonable position though I don’t have exhaustive truth of its veracity. Yet I’m open to contrary evidence.

“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” – 1 Corinthians 12-18 (ESV)

The bottom line for me is when I weigh the philosophical, historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence for Christianity (for which I have done prodigious research, particularly in the scientific arena), I believe I have done my best in terms of epistemic duty. I conclude that Christianity most closely aligns with reality given the alternatives, and that my belief is thus warranted. Of course, this entirely rests on the resurrection of Christ, which is very difficult to prove conclusively, but again, I believe I have done my epistemic best based on the eyewitness testimonial as recorded in the Bible. Now I don’t believe that someone has to become a biblical scholar such as myself in order to have a warranted belief in Christ, as the Bible takes a clear position that God has made his existence plain:

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” - Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)

So I assert the proper function of humankind is to ascertain that there is a God based on common grace, nature itself, and finally, special revelation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is indeed the truth then anyone who hears the message may respond to it whether they are currently an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, or of any other religious persuasion. It is an act of their cognitive abilities and their will, again, presuming their mental faculties are properly functioning . As well, they have full freedom to reject the gospel. Regarding John and Sharon, my hope is they will both give serious reflection to the worldview they have adopted, considering the full impact of their chosen philosophy in their lives and in the lives of those they touch.

Maureen Dowd: “White Man’s Last Stand”?

2009-07-17T00:30:00.001-07:00

On Tuesday, July 14, Maureen Dowd posted a rambling piece of hate speech posing as an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled “White Man’s Last Stand.” Not much of a surprise, but I do wonder why this woman holds such a deep revulsion for white men, particularly when she is the product of a white man and woman. The world may never know. Let’s hope she doesn’t follow up with a piece attacking white women, though she did manage to get in a jab at Sarah Palin towards the end of the piece, which had nothing to with the title or topic, so maybe she has it out for white people in general or was simply unable to stay on point. Anyway, the piece was ostensibly about white Republican men, who as a “last stand,” took unwarranted swipes at Sonia Sotomayor during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week. In this piece she calls out Republican senators Jon Kyl, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham as objects of her derision. Apparently Dowd was unhappy with the nature of their questions, which, to Dowd, appeared patronizing and mean-spirited, yet were deftly answered by the wise Latina Sotomayor who drew on the richness of her experiences to thwart this gaggle of white Republican men, “afraid of extinction,” whose only purpose was to trip her up. Interestingly, Dowd wasn’t particularly thrilled with Democratic senator Chuck Schumer’s line of questioning either, but since he’s a Democrat he escaped her deepest hatred since white men who are Democrats are either not afraid of extinction or don’t know that they too may be headed towards it.

What truly angers me about this piece is that in order to build Sotomayor up, it was not necessary to tear down white men in the process. Indeed, Dowd extends her invective by spouting off a litany of “bad decisions” made by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that were wholly unrelated to the Sotomayor confirmation. So perhaps Sotomayor was simply the launching point for all of the things Dowd wanted to get off her chest, as the next thing you know she’s informing us of just a small sample of Sarah Palin’s bad qualities, such as being an irrational, volatile, and “country-music queen without the music.” Though I hardly understand what value there is to this bombastic tirade, it’s a good thing to know the thoughts of a true liberal who’s not afraid to make her feelings known. Perhaps it’s a bit of self-loathing, white guilt, or possibly the woman has gone stark raving mad. I simply can’t think of a good reason to use the confirmation hearings as a launching pad to express her contempt for a whole group of people by viciously assailing honorable, upstanding public servants. And what specifically does the title “White Man’s Last Stand” imply? Is Dowd personally ushering in a new era of government by serving notice to white men, particularly of the Republican stripe, that they are no longer welcome? As the only two people deemed rational in the whole piece were Obama and Sotomayor, it appears that is the case.

I have no idea who Dowd is looking to curry favor with, or if she is looking to curry favor at all. What I will tell you, Miss Dowd, is that you have curried none with this black man if that was your intent. Like Sotomayor, you would deny a group of people their constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, presumably due to the actions of their ancestors and not their own. The very fact that we have a black president who was able to nominate a Hispanic woman is because of the mostly faceless white men and women who risked their reputations and often their lives to stand with blacks during the days of slavery and Jim Crow that ultimately led to us achieving our long-deserved civil rights in 1964. We could not have achieved this without those whites who respected their fellow man and respected the Constitution. Yes, it was a long struggle and many whites oppressed us as for as long as they possibly could. I personally grew up at the tail end of the civil rights period and was all too often called a “nigger,” as well as being denied access to swimming pools that didn’t allow blacks. Vestiges of this still exist in some places, but for the most part those days are over and I believe few whites today would want to go back. The few that mistreated me during my formative years are most likely still alive, yet I have forgiven them because their mistreatment only encouraged me to work hard with the faith that civil rights gains would yield fruit over the coming years. And they did.

So Miss Dowd, whatever has caused you to be so bitter and filled with hatred for white people, I sincerely hope you will come to grips with it. It is wholly unbecoming of a beautiful and talented woman such as yourself, as you are doing no good service in lashing out at a whole segment of fellow Americans for no legitimate reason by making a caricature of a few white politicians who don’t ascribe to your worldview. As a white woman, I can’t say that your life has necessarily been any more privileged than mine, but you have certainly not had to face what any black person has, which is indeed fortunate for you. Yet, even if you were black, there would be no excuse for this piece. I am highly disappointed in you, but even more disappointed in the New York Times for printing such an ugly and divisive article while purportedly positioning itself as a champion for “tolerance” and equal rights (apparently, this courtesy is only extended to those who agree with your worldview, thereby making the position moot). I certainly honor your First Amendment rights, Miss Dowd, but believe you have demonstrated a reckless degree of irresponsibility, as this piece is little more than hate speech directed at white Americans. You owe them, and all Americans, a most sincere apology.

The Dangers of Progressivism

2009-07-15T21:38:00.001-07:00

This post is the last in a three-part series tracing the roots of the progressive movement. In Part 1, The Damaging Effects of Philosophical Pragmatism, I discussed the philosophical underpinnings of progressivism. In Part 2, Progressivism, Obama, and You, I fleshed out progressivism as a system of thought and its progression during various presidencies leading up to Obama. This final post will discuss the dangers of progressivism, based on Glenn Beck’s new book titled Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine. From the outset, Beck notes that though many people hear the word “progressive” they immediately think of liberals or Democrats, but the truth is they’re not synonymous. Progressivism has less to do with parties and more to do with individuals who “seek to redefine, reshape, and rebuild America into a country where individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans and goals of the State.” Beck calls progressivism a cancer because it is not limited to political systems, but has infiltrated both political parties and the entire political class, which includes bureaucrats, lobbyists, trade unions, and corporations that “all look to government as their own personal ATM machine.”

Progressivism is why, according to Beck, Americans feel as though the candidates they get to choose from are pretty much the same. In other words, do you elect progressive candidate A, or really progressive candidate B? We need look no further than the last presidential election between John McCain, who would be candidate A, and Barack Obama, who has clearly demonstrated that he is candidate B. One of the hallmarks of progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesn’t determine there is a higher or better use for it. Teddy Roosevelt made this view clear in his speech on the “New Nationalism” in 1910, and I believe most of us recall Obama echoing this modern-day Robin Hood sentiment in his exchange with Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher during the last presidential campaign. Roosevelt said that personal property is “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” Roosevelt’s thoughts on accumulated wealth were equally illuminating. In the same speech he said, “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.” Theodore Roosevelt was also the first president to call for national health insurance. See a pattern here?

Beck goes on to note how Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was the next president to further the progressive agenda. Like Roosevelt, he didn’t believe there were any restrictions on government power. These two presidents serve as the idols and philosophical foundations for their respective parties, which perhaps explains why both parties seem to continually produce the same results. Like today, the early twentieth-century progressives loved to rely on “experts,” and used them as an excuse to expand their power. George W. Bush presided over a massive redistribution of wealth with his Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan. Even “conservative” presidential candidate John McCain cited Theodore Roosevelt as one of his favorite presidents. Beck argues that the presidential election of 2008 was truly a repeat of the presidential election of 1912, in which America was really only offered a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat as candidates. Over the last century, progressives have successfully moved our country toward more government control and less personal freedom—and they’re still pushing the envelope according to Beck. He doesn’t believe progressives have a master plan to take down America, as he thinks they genuinely believe their view is the best way forward. However, the problem is that fewer and fewer people are able to stand in their way because we don’t teach real American history any more, let alone the real history and vision of the progressive movement. The principles of freedom and liberty and the beliefs of the founding fathers have basically been whitewashed from the curriculum.

As I discussed in previous posts, progressives view the Constitution as a living organism that evolves with time and changes depending on the circumstances. As Beck notes, both the progressives and the founding fathers view the Constitution as a set of handcuffs—but the difference is the founders believed it was the power of the State that was to be cuffed, while progressives believed it was individuals who were cuffed to the greater good of the group. One of these two positions will win out and that will dictate how future generations live their lives. The battle is taking place now between these two philosophies right now in all aspects of our lives, with a few key issues outlined by Beck that the progressives are using to drive their agenda forward: the environment, gun control, education, and religion. I would add to this list healthcare, while as I write this Democrats are ramming through massively expensive, sweeping legislation to nationalize the healthcare system with little thought as to its true costs and its effects on an already weak economy. How could Congress completely redo the healthcare system representing 16% of our economy in just a matter of weeks, without considering that the present system simply needs to be improved? This alone demonstrates that progressives do not represent the people, but represent their own private agendas under the guise of the will of the people, as they gradually remake America in their own image.

References:

Beck, Glenn, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, New York: Mercury Radio Arts, 2009.

Obama and Czar-mania: The Change We’ve Been Waiting For?

2009-07-14T22:50:00.001-07:00

As of this writing, President Obama’s czar count has reached the tidy sum of 34 (not to be outdone by the first lady, who has 20 ~~servants~~ assistants, but that’s another story). Czars are public officials that are unelected yet have sweeping powers the same as Congress, with no accountability to Congress or a Cabinet secretary (or you, the taxpayer, for that matter). There are currently czars for climate change, executive pay, drugs, health care reform, urban affairs, domestic violence, energy, and so on ad nauseam. Czars are nothing new, as many Presidents have had them, but no President has had this many unelected officials with the tools and resources to make policy while being accountable to no one except the administration. The worst thing is these czar's don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, as they are simply appointed by the President. Obama’s use of czars is just one tool in the progressivist toolbox used to build a bureaucratic apparatus that will circumvent the Constitution toward its own ends. It is, quite frankly, a power grab by Obama to advance his utopian agenda with impunity through unelected “experts” that answer to no one but him. Again, this is nothing new, but is entirely consistent with the goals of the progressive movement that began in the late nineteenth century. So perhaps a little history might illuminate the actions of the Obama administration today.

At its inception, the progressive movement’s agenda, in addition to its push for social reform, included a wide array of legislative proposals to regulate business and property. Yet the Constitution, undergirded by the principle of individual property rights, provided an obstacle to these legislative programs. State constitutions were also resistant to progressive legislative programs, noting that the new programs extended the power of government well beyond its constitutional limits. The problem though, as progressives saw it, was a failure of the courts to see the Constitution as a “living” organism, one whose limitations on government ought not be read strictly or literally, but instead interpreted to fit the demands of a new age. For Woodrow Wilson, the structure of the Constitution itself made it nearly impossible for progressively minded interpreters to adapt it to their new agenda. The Constitution rested on a system of divided powers, both between federal and state levels of government, which thwarted Wilson’s efforts to bring about a unity of the “popular will.” Thus, he detested the separation of powers, and was highly critical of this system of government. The ideal model for Wilson was the parliamentary one, where the legislative and executive are essentially united, both rising and falling on the evolving popular will.

Wilson believed government was a living thing that falls under the theory of organic life, which is modified by its environment and shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. Thus it needed to be reformed to reflect the unity of the public mind that progressives believed had been brought about by history. Separation of powers, therefore, had to be discarded and replaced by a system that separated politics and administration. The most contentious political questions had been resolved by historical development (such as the Civil War), so the real work of the government was not in politics, but in administration. Thus the plan for reforming national institutions was to democratize and unify national political institutions while separating and insulating administrative agencies. Wilson believed the original intention of separation of powers could be circumvented by an enhanced presidency that could energize an active national government. To the extent that Wilson could claim to embody the people’s will, he would move institutions of national government by the force of that popularity. These national administrative institutions would then translate that broad will into specific policy.

Though the idea was to democratize national political institutions, the exact opposite was done through administrative agencies made up of a substantial bureaucratic apparatus, shielded from political influence, staffed by educated “experts” who would become the means for facilitating government through regulatory activity. This was clearly at odds with the Constitution, because whereas administration was supposed to be confined to the executive branch, a progressive administration engaged itself not only in executive action, but legislative and judicial action as well. These administrative agencies could superintend the activities of private businesses, and on the basis of their expertise, could make rules and regulations, enforce them, and adjudicate violations of them. Since these administrators were unlike ordinary politicians, they could, ostensibly, be objective and could focus on the good of the whole people. Yet the irony here is that this administrative model called for shifting policymaking power away from popular institutions and giving it to educated elites. Since they were “free” from political or electoral control, in actuality what Wilson was proposing was a distinctly elitist model under a democratic veneer.

Between Wilson and Roosevelt, progressives of both parties played a significant role in national, state, and local politics throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century. Roosevelt and Wilson reformed politics through federal regulation of numerous aspects of public life, which became commonplace. They inaugurated a new era in American government that, as I discussed in the last blog, was continued by other progressive presidents, with Obama simply being the latest torchbearer of the progressive movement. While Wilson’s concept of government was concerned with shielding administrative agencies from political influence so administrators could run rampant in making policy, Obama’s chosen method to circumvent the Constitution is to appoint a small army of czars reporting directly to him to accomplish the same end. Is this the change we’ve been waiting for? For me, indeed not.

Note: I realize that according to the previous post this post was supposed to discuss the dangers of progressivism, but I couldn’t resist getting in a “jab” about czar-mania. The next post will address that topic.

* References

Pestritto, Ronald J. and William J. Atto, eds. American Progressivism: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008.

Progressivism, Obama, and You

2009-07-05T13:29:00.000-07:00

This is the second installment in a series on political philosophy and its practical implications in America. In the first installment, I discussed the damaging effects of philosophical pragmatism, which may appear to be an “ivory tower” topic, but as I will show in this post, directly affects you in the arena of your government. The point I most want to get across is that all of our political leaders have adopted some system of thought, and that system of thought will have direct affects on how they lead this country. This fact cannot be more salient than at the federal level, where each and every citizen is affected, whereas at the state level, if you don’t like the way your state is governed, you always have the option to move to another state. Take note that in the states of California and Michigan, for example, there is a net outflow of people because Americans are “voting with their feet” by seeking out other states that have more opportunities and less onerous taxation. Now at the federal level, most Obama supporters see him as “change,” as if he is something new and different from those Presidents who have gone before him. But the truth is he is not a different type of politician, but the latest in a line of progressive Presidents leading back to Teddy Roosevelt. This worldview and way of governing has its basis in philosophical pragmatism, which I discussed in my previous post.

One of the central figures in developing philosophical pragmatism, according to Nancy Pearcey in Total Truth, was educator John Dewey, who was a leading representative of the progressive movement, and whose writings and speeches along with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were highly influential on democracy in America. Pragmatism, in essence, is an evolutionary logic based on a naturalized version of German historicism, particularly that of Romantic idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel’s historicism taught that the material world is the outworking of an Absolute Spirit or Mind or God, where the Absolute externalizes itself over time through the historical process (history is completely contingent in that it is spontaneous, unpredictable, and open to genuine novelty). Dewey naturalized Hegelian historicism by reconciling it with Darwinism, thus offering pragmatism as a “via media,” or middle way that would overcome the dichotomy between philosophical naturalism and philosophical idealism. Essentially, pragmatists seized on the role of chance as a basis for a philosophy of indeterminacy, freedom, and innovation. The “openness” of the world takes the form of chance at lower levels of complexity, and takes the form of choice at the human level.

In the book American Progressivism: A Reader, Ronald Pestritto and William Atto note that the coupling of historical contingency with the doctrine of progress (namely, philosophical pragmatism) was shared by all progressives to one degree or another, and reveals how the progressive movement became the means by which German historicism was imported into the American political tradition. In fact, Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876, was established for the express reason of bringing the German educational model to the United States, which produced prominent progressives that included John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, most modern liberals of today now refer to themselves as progressives, which is something of a homecoming. In general, modern liberals favor an expansive and active central government of the kind we have seen in America since the early part of the twentieth century, as opposed to classical liberalism, which saw the fundamental purpose of government as the protection of individual rights, viewing with suspicion any extension of governmental power into spheres beyond this limited purpose.

Pestritto and Atto note how Dewey complained that the founding generation lacked historic sense and interest and that it had a disregard of history. Dewey endorsed, instead, the doctrine of historical contingency, compatible with Hegelian thought. Natural rights theory, according to Dewey, blinded classical (or what Dewey called “early”) liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and thus only relevant to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places, yet for Dewey, the idea of liberty was not frozen in time, but had instead a history of evolved meaning. Dewey believed the history of liberalism was progressive, which told a story of the move from more primitive to more mature conceptions of liberty. Modern liberalism, therefore, for Dewey, represented a vast improvement over classical liberalism.

Pestritto and Atto continue that American progressives took from the Germans their critique of individual rights and social compact theory, and their organic or “living” notion of the national state. Woodrow Wilson wrote of government as a “living thing,” which was to be understood according to “the theory of organic life.” The “living” notion of a constitution, Wilson contended, was far superior to the founders’ model, which had considered government a kind of “machine” that could be constantly limited through checks and balances. As a living entity, the progressives reasoned, government had to evolve and adapt in response to changing circumstances. While early American conceptions of national government had carefully circumscribed its power due to the perceived threat to individual liberties, progressives argued that history had brought about an improvement in the human condition, such that the will of the people was no longer in danger of giving in to factions. Progressives took this doctrine of progress and translated it into a call for a sharp increase in the scope of governmental power. There may be no greater example of this than Theodore Roosevelt’s speech on the New Nationalism in 1910. Roosevelt called on the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property was to be respected, but only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social utility.

Roosevelt argued that new circumstances necessitated a new conception of government, and natural rights were no longer to serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing. Wilson had outlined a similar view of the extent of state power, even stating that he found nothing wrong with socialism in principle since no line can be drawn between public and private affairs which the state could not cross at will. Fundamentally, this view argued that rights-based theories of self-government, such as the republicanism to which the American founders subscribed and of which Wilson was sharply critical, are far less democratic than socialism. Wilson and his fellow progressives believed that rights-based theories of government limit the state’s sphere of action, thus limiting the capability of the people to implement their collective will and thus representing something less than a real democracy. So what we should see now is that a key goal of progressivism is to overcome the Constitution's limits on government and enlarge vastly the scope of government through regulation and redistribution of private property.

So whereas the founders had posited what they held to be a permanent understanding of just government, based upon a permanent account of human nature, the progressives countered that the ends and scope of government were to be defined anew in each historical epoch. Progressivism has a deep faith in historical progress, suggesting that due to historical evolution, government was becoming less of a danger to the governed and more capable of solving the great array of problems befalling the human race. These welfare-state politics of the twentieth and now twenty-first century are built upon a direct and conscious rejection of the original principles of the American Constitution, which were subsequently implemented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, extended by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and have since been maintained by the progressive polices of presidents for both major political parties. In my view, this includes George Bush’s policies, and now Barack Obama’s more radical brand of progressivism which is on par with that of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In my next post, I will discuss the dangers of progressivism based on Glenn Beck’s new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine, as well as further reading of the Pestritto and Atto book.

* References:

Pestritto, Ronald J. and William J. Atto, eds. American Progressivism: A Reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008.

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

The Damaging Effects of Philosophical Pragmatism

2009-06-27T21:39:00.001-07:00

This blog begins a series of philosophical posts examining current day social thought in America, and its historical underpinnings. We are all products not only of the current age, but of the ages that precede us in history. While philosophical pragmatism may sound like an ivory tower term dreamed up by philosophers with too much time on their hands (which may be true), it actually is a useful term that reflects 19th century thinking and has had profound implications throughout the 20th century into now, the 21st. In Nancy Pearcey’s book Total Truth, she describes philosophical pragmatism as a distinctly “home-grown” American philosophy that has been enormously influential since the late nineteenth century when Darwinism (Charles Darwin’s theory of the transmutation of species, or rather, evolution at the macro level) crossed the Atlantic. It’s core assumption, according to Pearcey, is that if life has evolved, then the human mind has evolved as well, and all the human sciences must be rebuilt on that basis. This ethic has had no small effect on American thinking, as Pearcey notes, as it has not only altered the way Americans think, but also the very structure of American social institutions.

Pearcey notes that at its heart, pragmatism is a (purely) Darwinian view of knowledge (epistemology). Pragmatism means the mind is nothing more than a part of nature, rejecting the older view that the human mind is transcendent to matter, in favor of a Darwinian view that mind is produced by matter. This presumption subverted both traditional and liberal forms of theism, since both forms make mind prior to matter. In traditional theology, a transcendent God creates the world according to his own design and purpose, whereas in liberal theology, an immanent deity externalizes its purpose through historical development of the world. Notwithstanding the differences between the two, both views hold that mind precedes matter, shaping and directing the development of the material world. Yet Darwin reversed this order, by positing that mind emerges very late in evolutionary history as a product of purely natural forces. Mind is not a fundamental, creative force but merely an evolutionary by-product. For the pragmatists, this “naturalizing” of the mind was the most revolutionary impact of Darwinian theory, implying that mental functions are merely adaptations for solving problems in the environment. So to get this right, our beliefs are not reflections of reality, but rules for action aimed at a payoff, not aimed at truth. As the pioneering psychologist William James opined, truth is the “cash value” of an idea. If it pays off, then we can call it true.

Previous to this system of thought, notes Pearcey, the dominant theory of knowledge was based on the biblical doctrine of the image of God. It is because human reason reflects the divine reason that we can trust human knowledge to be generally reliable. God created our minds to “fit” the universe that he made for us to inhabit, and when our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, they are designed to give us genuine knowledge (more specifically, epistemologist Alvin Plantinga argues that our beliefs have warrant if produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in a congenial epistemic environment, according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth). Yet the pragmatists, states Pearcey, faced squarely the implications of evolution. If blind, undirected natural forces produced the mind, they said, then it is meaningless to ask whether our ideas reflect reality. To pragmatists, ideas are simply mental survival strategies—continuations of the struggle for existence by other means.

In general, pragmatists hold the belief that knowledge is a social construction, in that individuals don’t create knowledge, groups do. William James however, was more charitable in that he allowed each individual to decide what works satisfactorily for them, suggesting that something is true for someone if it meets their needs. In other words, whatever you decide, that’s your truth. In essence, this was the precursor to what we now call postmodern thought, which is becoming increasingly dominant in American culture today. The “pragmatic” thing to do, these days, is to believe there is no objective moral truth, and that we make our own truth. Whatever works, is true. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. But what is important to understand here, according to Pearcey, is that pragmatic success does not make a claim true. And therein, I assert, lies the fallacy of pragmatism. It avoids truth claims, but in so doing actually makes a truth claim which is, ostensibly, an objective truth. In my view, the wholesale acceptance of a Darwinian system of thought that is not properly aimed at objective truth is ill-considered, and will lead us down a highly dangerous path if carried to its logical conclusion. We need look no further than the 20th century regimes of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, all of which accepted and implemented, with horrific results, a purely Darwinian worldview. The key question is if that is our inevitable trajectory as we continue to reject objective truth under the rubric of “pragmatism.”

* References:

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford, 1993.

Can Government Provide a Healthcare Solution?

2009-06-20T23:18:00.001-07:00

My plan was to begin a new series on philosophical pragmatism and its damaging effects on society, but I will delay that topic until my next post so I can talk a little about “government solutions,” which, in my view, is more of an oxymoronic exception than it is an actual truth. In a number of exchanges with my Facebook friends recently, I have seen expressions of skepticism and a lack of faith in the capitalist system of the United States. Yet their alternative to resolve the “evils of capitalism” always seems to be more and bigger government, as if government represents some paragon of virtue and ethics that the unenlightened masses lack. My view is since government is made up of fallen people, then it has the same imperfections as the fallen people that make it up. This means that those in government who are supposed to represent the people can have personal agendas that are counter to the will of the people, and can enact legislation that may be ultimately bad for the people. This is particularly a problem at the federal level, since all people are affected, and is precisely why the people should hold government accountable, which includes getting the federal government out of areas in which it lacks competence or purpose.

"While the 10th Amendment explicitly limits the power of the federal government, today it has become little more than a quaint, and toothless, sentiment. But that wasn't always the case. The Founding Fathers were no fools. They understood that those who are inclined to power are also tenacious defenders of that power once they have achieved it."

Let’s take for example the current healthcare debate, with some feeling government-run healthcare is a “fundamental right.” I don’t agree with this because fundamental rights are, and I believe should, be strictly within the limits of natural law. In other words, those rights given by the creator that are unalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, we have rights based on the social contract that people make with government which gives it authority over certain moral and/or political obligations. So I don’t see healthcare as an unalienable right, but as a potential policy directive added to the social contract between the people and our government. Otherwise, we could go on forever with people continually declaring certain rights, giving more control to the government that coerces others against their will to pay for those rights (since a right costs something if some good or service must be provided to honor that right). You will ultimately get more and more people demanding rights with less and less people to actually pay for them. So regardless of where the debate over healthcare goes, healthcare is certainly not an unalienable right.

With respect to healthcare, I believe free market capitalism, though it is not perfect, provides for the most win-win scenarios based on a free exchange of market-based services. And within a framework of rule of law and property rights, the free market system works beautifully. Somehow, though, people expect it work perfectly, which is anything but realistic. Based on human nature, there will always be market bubbles that form and burst and there will always be creative destruction as technological advances are made. The healthcare system demonstrates the very issues that have come about with the advancement of innovative, life-saving technologies over the past five decades. But these technologies come at a price and have contributed to about half of all growth in costs (with preventable illness making up 90% of all healthcare costs, much of this due to obesity and smoking). Yet If we look at the way that people live now compared to 100 years ago, we see that due to capitalism, people now enjoy a far higher standard of living. Still, Americans are not satisfied that we have an exemplary economic system which needs to be defended, even though it isn't perfect.

My understanding is that most people who go to a doctor when their medical situation is advanced, or go to the ER, are those that can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it because they have other priorities. The ER is for those that need critical care regardless of whether they have insurance or not, with the insured bearing the full burden. But the ER is also used by those without insurance even if the need is not critical, which the insured pay for as well. The truth is we will always have those that don't purchase insurance when they can afford it, who drive up costs in the ER, and those who make poor health choices in life that drive up insurance premiums directly or indirectly based on whether they have insurance or not. People of today behave irresponsibly mainly because they can, since social mores and personal responsibility don't have the value they once did, and of course, the fact that the government will step in with other people's money in exchange for cheap votes and expanded powers. So I am certain that government-run healthcare is not the solution, since it won’t fundamentally change human nature.

The truth is any solution will be imperfect. Yet I continue to believe strongly that capitalism and our system of government as framed by the founding fathers is the best system to respond to the current issues in healthcare. What is needed is more competition rather than less, with the federal government not involved as a player in healthcare, but involved only in policy that facilitates the free market system. This would include the federal government getting out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, remanding these to state and local governments that will provide this safety net for the truly needy in a more personal and efficient manner. Within the free market system, there should be a premium to pay for those who don’t (or won’t) accept responsibility for their lifestyle choices that cause preventable diseases. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to me that insurance companies be able to set premiums based on the lifestyle choices of the insured, and practical limits on how much care they will pay for. Those who refuse to purchase insurance when they can afford to should not be able to take unlimited advantage of the ER, particularly for non-emergency care.

The bottom line is Americans need to become more physically active and more responsible about their life choices, and if they don't, accept the consequences. It is unreasonable for someone to smoke, drink to excess, and live a generally unhealthy lifestyle expecting someone else to foot the bill. The government should not enforce this, but should work with insurance companies and healthcare providers on common sense policies that support their efforts to provide the best possible balance of coverage that would include preventive measures and reasonable limits on care based on objective criteria. We are all going to die some day, so we shouldn’t expect to be kept alive when our time has come solely because medical technology allows it. Doctors, along with their patients and patient families, have been making end-of-life decisions for generations, long before insurance. The blessing of private insurance has greatly improved the availability of healthcare, so let’s celebrate it and accept the fact that it has limits, while looking for ways to make it more available that preserves the efficiency and efficacy of the free market.

* References:

Jamieson, Bob, in Letters section. "Could America Ever Become the Not-So-United States?" The Wall Street Journal, 20 June 2009. Available from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545060728632553.html. Accessed 20 June, 2009.

Solutions for Social Justice – Part 3

2009-06-05T10:51:00.001-07:00

In the final installment of this series, I want to first outline a key point about capitalism that we all inherently know, but it is worth repeating: capitalism as an economic system is not perfect. Now that I have that off my chest, I believe we all need to realize, if we haven’t already, that there is no perfect economic system and there will be no perfect system, ever. What should hearten us, however, is the excellent point that Jay Richards makes in his book Money, Greed, and God, stating that though free market [capitalism] doesn’t guarantee that everyone will win in any given competition, it allows many more win-win encounters than any alternative. And thus free market capitalism is the solution and not a part of the problem. The problem that actually led to the current economic crisis was an abuse of capitalism, and not the outcome of capitalism itself. So the worst thing we could do is to unceremoniously ditch capitalism in favor of some utopian alternative, particularly alternatives that have been demonstrably proven to not work, such as socialism.

One thing I have heard regularly from my liberal friends is how greed brought about the current economic crisis. I absolutely agree with the assertion that greed contributed to the economic crisis, but it was largely caused by the government in terms of monetary policy and gross interference in the free market by browbeating lenders into making home loans they would not otherwise make for the sake of encouraging an “ownership society.” This government interference crossed party boundaries, so there is plenty of blame to go around, but I would argue that the lack of proper regulation by the House Financial Services committee and the Senate Banking Committee caused untold damage, particularly in their oversight (or lack thereof) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. My liberal friends, however, go further by excoriating corporate executives in general for their greed. And this is where we part ways, because first, whereas I do agree that greed is wrong, I don’t believe it always produces a poor outcome. I have on numerous occasions done business with people who I thought were greedy, but the transaction occurred because they offered a better value than the alternatives, possibly seeking to make more profit by volume. Second, since we have the rule of law in place, I know that the greedy people I chose to avoid will ultimately be brought to justice (some of which was served by me not giving them my business). As well, the greedy person’s volume strategy could fail causing them to go out of business, or they might rub enough people the wrong way and achieve the same effect. So consumer choice and rule of law are clearly two important keys to making free markets work.

As Richards points out in his book, free trade is not anarchy, as some would assert. It requires “a rule of law that makes sure one person doesn’t steal from another person or force the other person into an unwilling exchange (merely a more sophisticated form of theft).” He next argues that this doesn’t mean the government should control the market. The government’s job, amongst the few things it is designed to do, is to put a rule of law in place so unwilling exchanges are minimized, such as when unseemly brokers and banks attempt to sell “toxic loans” to unsuspecting homebuyers. In effect, this was the sophisticated theft through greed that the government was supposed to prevent, but only aided and abetted through poor monetary policy and lack of proper oversight of the financial markets. Beyond proper oversight, the government cannot control an economy because the free actions of individuals engaging in free trade is enormously complex, and when the government goes into the business of setting prices and controlling the production of goods and services through central planning, it has never worked out well for the people. In the governments whose leaders have tried this approach, such as those of Lenin and Mao Tse-tung, widespread famine and death resulted. So hopefully we have learned our lesson from history.

Richards notes that determining the economic value of anything is indeed a mystery and that market order is a wonder. Essentially, the price of a good or a service in a free economy is a little “packet of information” that tells us its economic value at that moment. It represents an underlying reality that is not merely the random choice of a store clerk, but is a highly sensitive network for gathering and disseminating information, leading to specific prices for goods and services of interest. Richards further states that price alone allows entrepreneurs to decide where to invest, and it tells producers of goods how much to produce compared with other things it could produce. Thus, in a free market, goods and services will typically end up where they are valued the most. An excellent example is if a hurricane in the South leads to a local shortage of gasoline, gas prices will go up there and draw more gasoline to that region where it is more needed. Unfortunately, what typically happens in a crisis is that the government manipulates prices instead of allowing the free market to do its work. Another classic example is the “oil crisis” of the 1970s, when the government implemented price controls which, according to historian Thomas Woods, led to perverse outcomes that basic economic literacy would have avoided. In short, price controls did not allow more expensive oil to flow where it was most productive, which included oil rigs off the Louisiana coast, and further, did not allow other oil suppliers to enter the American market and alleviate the shortage. The result was long, unnecessary lines at the pump (as I distinctly recall, thus dating myself).

To bring this to a close and solidly address social justice, my conclusion is that a free market, properly regulated by consumer choice and a rule of law that minimizes (since it cannot eliminate) win-lose exchanges, provides for the greatest degree of social justice since it allows for the free exchange of goods and services with prices being set by willing sellers and willing buyers. If sellers don’t meet the needs and desires of buyers, then those sellers will ultimately go out of business. Now as to the rich, they do not become so at the expense of the poor, because economics is not a zero-sum game where for someone to win, someone else has to lose. The economy grows naturally as greater productivity is achieved, lifting all involved. And capitalism is setup precisely to maximize win-win situations so the economy can increase productivity and expand accordingly. The problem is with so much government meddling in capital markets, and the confiscation of wealth to fund inefficient, bureaucratic social programs, the poor have less capital to work with to start businesses or achieve more education that would allow them to command higher salaries. Indeed, most people of wealth today in the United States started from very humble beginnings, so we can have confidence that people of all economic levels can aspire to a better life, even if not great wealth.

In this current technological age, new wealth and opportunities to create wealth are created all the time. Yes, there will be the inevitable disruptions as technology shifts, but this is no different than the way things were 150 years ago when whole agrarian communities could be wiped out after a couple of years of drought, or in the early 1900s when the horseless carriage put buggy manufacturers out of business. Yet we live in a time of unprecedented comfort and leisure that even the wealthiest people 100 years ago could only dream of, due to high productivity and division of labor. In day to day life, there isn’t a major lifestyle difference between the average middle-class family and Hollywood celebrities or sports stars though obviously, many of the latter have a more secure financial future (presuming they don’t blow it). Even the poor today live considerably better than the average middle-class family in the early 1900s (e.g., running water, sanitation, refrigeration, air conditioning). But to bring about the social justice necessary to lift up those in poverty will require the church and charities working at the local level, in concert with the principle of subsidiarity as I discussed in my previous blog post. If the federal government gets out of the business of social programs, the necessary capital will be freed up so that people can make free decisions in an efficient manner to help those less fortunate within their own communities. The American people have always been up to this task, and it is time the government put its trust and the future of America back into the hands of the people.

* References:

Richards, Jay W. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Woods Jr., Thomas E. The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Market. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2005.

“Equality”: Its Use and Misuse

2009-06-01T17:12:00.001-07:00

I’m introducing an interim topic while I continue my research on solutions for social justice, and am happy to be out of school for summer for the first time in three years. After perusing reader contributions to the commentary section on gay marriage in this past Sunday’s Orange County Register, I felt I should respond to the overloaded use of the word “equality” as the LGBT community likes to define it. Personally, I think if they took a hard look at the way they are trying to redefine this word, let alone marriage, they would see the logical fallacies of their arguments, and what the unintended consequences might be if they were to have their way. Specifically, the way they use the word equality makes the word mean that if someone, in their own mind, doesn’t feel like they’re getting what someone else has, then there is a fundamental inequality that exists and must thus be ameliorated so they can feel “equal.”

One young gentlemen wrote in to say that those who voted for Prop. 8 (the ballot measure that amends the CA constitution so it only recognizes marriage between a man and woman) chose to “fear and hate homosexuality rather than understand it.” So, according to him, anyone and everyone who voted for Prop. 8 fear and hate homosexuals while not understanding their lifestyle, and there is no possible alternative way of thinking. He further states that the ruling puts forth the idea that members of the LGBT community are not “equal” to those of the heterosexual community, so this is “discrimination by definition.” Well first, I would like to state that I don’t think he knows the mind of those who voted for Prop. 8 because he has probably not had a civil conversation with any of them. Anyone who chooses to paint others with a broad-brushed stroke to assert they know with certainty what others think without doing their due diligence is arguing speciously. I personally know of no one who fears or hates homosexuals, but they simply don’t agree that homosexuality should be accepted as a normative lifestyle. As to understanding the gay lifestyle, I think most people clearly understand monogamous homosexual relationships, but have little knowledge of the sexual profligacy of the gay “scene” in major metropolitan areas that has contributed greatly to HIV/AIDS transmission. This is the side of the gay lifestyle they don’t discuss in public. In fact, one of my best college friends contracted HIV/AIDS in the LA gay scene and is now back in Florida living with the unfortunate consequences of his chosen lifestyle.

On this gentleman’s second point, he states that members of the LGBT community are not equal to those of the heterosexual community, which is discrimination by definition. This is classically flawed thinking. There are few things in this life that are “equal,” but the inequality here does not imply discrimination in the sense that someone is somehow being slighted if all things are not being made “equal” to their liking. For example, in the eyes of God, Bill Gates and the poor children he is helping in Africa have an equal spiritual status. Yet they don’t have an equal economic status in terms of wealth. So is it inherently bad because Bill Gates won’t “equalize” his wealth with the children he helps, or is the issue that these poor families don’t have an equal opportunity to gain wealth, which Gates is pressing for? I would argue for the latter. Another example is my company’s eight weeks of paid maternity and paternity leave, respectively, for a mother and father having a child. Is it “unequal” that since I don’t have any children, I don’t get the same benefit? Yes it is, but as I stated, few things in this life are “equal.” So it would be the height of narcissism for me to presume that I should be treated “equal” to those who have children, since my situation is decidedly not “equal” to theirs. This could also be applied to tax benefits for married couples and to mortgage deductions, which are clearly “unequal” since others are, in essence, being discriminated against, but these policies are designed to serve the common good by encouraging responsible behavior that leads to societal stability.

Now as this relates to the young man who wrote to the Register, and another who goes even further, stating that the electorate has “disenfranchised and marginalized” a minority group (even comparing this situation to the days of Hitler and hysteria against the Jews), I will lay out my case in opposition. First, I would say that I am a minority whose people endured almost four hundred years of horrific slavery, Jim Crow, and “separate but unequal” status before achieving our full civil rights in 1964. To my knowledge, the LGBT community enjoys full protections under the law as I do, and have access to civil unions in California that provide benefits equivalent to heterosexual marriages. So I fail to see how this group is being disenfranchised, marginalized, or is suffering in any way as did Jews under Hitler or as blacks did under slavery and Jim Crow. They have freely chosen their lifestyles and are free to live their lives as they choose. But what they want at core is acceptance by the majority (and the church), yet they push for it under the guise of equality due to a mistaken idea of what equality truly means and the many dimensions in which equality may be defined. For millennia, societies have determined that male and female, in a committed relationship, set the normative definition of marriage that can produce children in concert with nature. Those who believe that is somehow inherently discriminatory clearly have no respect for the institution of traditional marriage and its stabilizing force in society, as they cannot marshal any demonstrated alternative superior to this norm other than to express their felt needs that their freely chosen alternative relationships should be “included” in this definition.

If we allow gay marriage then we must necessarily allow for polygamous marriages, “geometric” arrangements (such as “triads” and “quads”), and incestuous relationships, because the argument for gay marriage is the same as that in favor of any other alternative arrangement: it is one about choice and not about any inherently normative family structure. In her prescient book on worldview titled Total Truth, author Nancy Pearcey states that the social institution of marriage is a moral entity in itself, with its own normative definition, where there is a “good” for the individuals in the relationship and there is a “common good” for their lives together. She laments that we live in a time when “family bonds are rapidly dissolving in the acids of personal autonomy,” counter to the wisdom of traditionalist cultures where the clan or tribe takes precedence over the individual. In other words, we are allowing radical individualism to slowly and inexorably break the bonds of traditional family structures and values, with the outcome eventually being the breakdown of society itself. Somehow I don’t see these gentlemen that wrote to the register as seriously deliberating about the potential unintended consequences of gaining what they desire, as their arguments are about choices and feelings, and not a truly working definition of equality that accounts for the common good and what history has taught us.

* References

Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Solutions for Social Justice – Part 2

2009-05-23T21:34:00.001-07:00

Since my post several weeks ago titled “Solutions” for Social Justice?, I have been delving deep into books, blogs, and articles that speak to capitalism and its relationship to human action. Specifically, my concern was how the poor are affected by capitalism and if it is indeed the best economic model for the poor, the rich, and those in between. While I am absolutely positive that socialism is not a viable economic model, since it concentrates economic control into the hands of a few, my thought was that Distributism would be a practical “third way,” as I expressed in my previous “Solutions” post, which would counter the concentration of wealth that appears inevitable within a capitalist system. While Distributism certainly has some striking benefits as an economic system based on subsidiarity, which is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority, in practical terms it appears the implementation of this model en masse would require a fundamental remake of our economy, but I believe it would be a powerful model for social and economic change. Still, I continue to believe that capitalism as it currently exists is a viable economic model that preserves individual liberty while providing opportunity for the upward mobility of all classes. In particular, I believe the Austrian School of economics provides the best model for robust capitalism, and I would argue that our system of government should further incorporate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity sans its hierarchical social structure (closer to sphere sovereignty in Reformed parlance) if it is to continue successfully with capitalism as our chosen economic model.

I recently finished the book Money, Greed, and God by Jay Wesley Richards, who is a former Director and Research Fellow at the Acton Institute, a Christian think-tank whose mission is “to promote a free, virtuous, and humane society. This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.” Note the emphases on limited government, free markets, and moral values, which are buttressed by justice as a duty of all to serve the common good in a free society with free markets. I believe Jay has captured in his book the crux of what makes a free, capitalist society such as ours work and thus achieve greatness as a young republic. His book provides deep insights into capitalism and its history, and he has explicated the ideals of the Acton Institute in concert with the controversial yet powerful Austrian economic model, providing a clear way forward for realizing the continued greatness of our country, if we embrace capitalism for its highest purpose.

In leveraging Jay’s book as the basis for this post, I want to be clear that neither Jay, in his book, nor I, in this post, believe that any economic system is perfect. Despite what some in government would have us believe, there will never be a utopia on earth (and of all people, Christians should know this better than anyone else). Government simply cannot and will not solve all of our problems, because human interaction is incredibly complex. The best the government can do is provide a framework for economic interaction that produces the best possible outcomes, and then properly enforce the rules of engagement. The more government attempts to take on above and beyond the limited number of things it is designed to do well, the harder it is for a society to function because decision-making becomes concentrated into the hands of a few instead of allowing a fairly-traded market to decide outcomes based on free interchange. Though there are some brilliant and highly talented people working for the government, it is humanly impossible, particularly at the federal level, for any of them to fully consider the consequences of meddling in free markets.

For just a moment, think about the fact that the framers of our Constitution, many who were men of wealth, power, and prestige, could have constructed a centralized system of government, but instead chose to provide a small number of enumerated powers to the federal government while allowing the states to conduct their own affairs. The wisdom in this choice was that people were free to govern themselves at the state level, and moreover, free to own property and to conduct business through free markets (evils of slavery notwithstanding). The states were (and continue to be) in constant competition with one another to test out new ideas and either fail or succeed in the manner in which they decided to govern. If a state government became too onerous or abusive in its power, or did things to hurt its own economy, its citizens were always free to move to another state that provided more opportunities or freedoms (which I am seriously considering doing since I happen to live in the sorry state of California). What was common to all states was the Constitution, which was the supreme law of the land, yet it also expressly limited the powers of the federal government. If only the folks in Washington, D.C. would adhere to these limits.

Now, to get to the topic at hand, the problem is, as Jay states in his book, that we have reflexively looked to the government for the past forty years to solve social problems. It hasn’t worked because when the state takes over a task that is better handled by someone closer to the problem, it transgresses its proper boundaries and creates more problems than it solves. Jay discusses a set of overlapping “circles of responsibility,” which I have ordered as follows: self, family, neighbors, churches and nonprofits, city/state government, and the federal government. It is when the federal government steps in and runs roughshod over this intricate “web” of overlapping responsibilities with no knowledge of the situation on the ground, violating the principle of subsidiarity, that we have increased problems. The federal government simply grows itself by confiscating capital that could be used more efficiently at the lower levels, and redistributes the wealth it has taken based on its own priorities. This is entirely different from general taxation for legitimate government functions as enumerated in the Constitution. Rather than promoting the general welfare, these redistribution schemes end up allowing citizens to vote for the government to take property from others to give to them. And it doesn’t solve the poverty problem, but simply breeds more dependence on the federal government. And apparently, that is precisely why they do it even though it is impersonal, inefficient, lacking in necessary knowledge, and decidedly unconstitutional.

More to come in Part 3, where I will discuss how capitalism does not reward the rich at the expense of the poor, and how it provides the best model for lifting the poor out of poverty, requiring a change in the government mindset towards to the poor and allowing those who can best serve the poor to do so. Of course, this will mean no more cheap votes, which I believe is the federal government’s purpose for involving itself in social programs in the first place.

Miss USA and Theological Cherry-picking

2009-04-26T10:52:00.001-07:00

I apologize for being so rudely interrupted in my series on social justice solutions, but I couldn’t resist this post, and will pick my other more important topic back up soon. I won’t go much into the controversy over Carrie Prejean’s unfortunate question and response at the recent Miss USA pageant, as that is well reported. But I do want to call out a particular interview on the CNN Campbell Brown show between guest commentator Roland Martin and Miss Prejean. In the interview, Martin quoted former Miss California 2003, Nicole Lamarche, who is now an ordained minister, as having said the following:

"In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman... While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.”

First, what are the "terms" of the Bible she speaks of? If it is flawed, or all the more, false, then what's the point of being an ordained minister? Second, why should we take Lamarche’s admonition that the Bible says we should love our neighbor as ourselves if it can’t be trusted? Is she asserting that you can take what you like and encourage that, but discard what you don't like and say it's up to interpretation? That appears to me very flawed logic. Third, how is Lamarche so certain that Carrie is attempting to “further her own prejudice”? Couldn’t we also assert that Lamarche is prejudiced since she believes her own position is right? Who is to judge if there is no objective moral standard? Apparently there isn’t one since Lamarche doesn’t see the Bible as having any particular authority unless she accedes it. Thus, she sets her own standard and projects her standards on Prejean. What a shame.

I can certainly respect those who feel the Bible is a flawed, errant document that is just a collection of fables. But if they feel that way, I think it’s only honest to be consistent on that view. The Bible is propositional in that it makes truth claims that one can accept as true or reject. Its entire veracity rests on the truth claim of the resurrection of Christ, and nothing else. Concomitant with this truth is Christ’s proclamation that the Old Testament is true, and that he witnessed its history as a part of the Holy Trinity, co-eternal with God. So the Bible is not a book where you can accept some of its tenets as authoritative, while rejecting others. If it is not true, or is only partially true, then what one accepts or does not accept as true is simply a matter of personal opinion.

Unfortunately Lamarche wants to have her cake and eat it too. She sees the Bible as authoritative in areas where she happens to be in agreement, but she doesn’t see the same in areas where she doesn’t. For someone learned in religious studies, it frightens me that she doesn’t understand the concept of progressive revelation and that not everything the Bible reports is what it condones. Sinful behavior is a regular occurrence in the Bible, thus the story of redemption within its pages. She further violates basic methods of interpretation in her exegesis of New Testament passages. Let’s now look at a few quotes from a recent interview with her alma mater, Pacific School of Religion:

“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!”

First, she presumes that anyone against gay marriage is “seeking to condemn gay people.” While this may be the case for some, isn’t it reasonable to say that people can be against gay marriage because they believe the Bible is true and that it condemns homosexuality? And isn’t it possible to love gay people as the Bible commands while not agreeing with their lifestyle choice, and further, not abridging such? If those people respect biblical authority as Lamarche presumably does, then why should they believe otherwise? As to comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish, this is where Lamarche completely misses progressive revelation. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 was enjoined with other practices such as incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives, under Mosaic law. While these prohibitions were included in Mosaic law, it must be known that the Mosaic law was temporal and conditional, but these prohibitions were in effect before the Mosaic law, during, and now continue to this day as being fundamental to society. Would anyone say that we should allow incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives today because their prohibition is limited to Mosaic law? As with many other prohibitions in the Mosaic law, in the New Covenant all dietary restrictions were deemed unnecessary under the dispensation of grace, and are not in effect today. Lamarche then continues with her next rhetorical volley:

“In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.”

Here, Lamarche focuses on a narrow passage, violating the three basic hermeneutical rules consisting of context, context, context for biblical interpretation. This passage is within the larger context of keeping order in church meetings. Paul’s call was not for absolute silence, but was specific in that he wanted wives to wait to ask their husbands questions at home. At that time they actually respected men as the head of their households. In God’s eyes, the woman is personally equal to the male, but she is distinct in her womanhood from his manhood. Thus God designed the woman to function in willing subjection to her husband’s headship in the church. So this in no way enslavement, but a willing partnership between equals with different roles.

Finally, Lamarche demonstrates extraordinarily poor biblical exegesis, particularly for someone who carries the title of ordained minister:

“The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”

The truth is that it is no more difficult to know the sure intentions of biblical authors than it is for you, my dear reader, to know the intentions of the post you are currently reading, or to know the intentions of Lamarche’s writings. Otherwise, biblical interpretation would be an academic exercise and become purposeless since the Bible could be interpreted to suit whatever one desires at any point in time. The purpose of biblical interpretation is authorial intent (as it is with this post). No more, no less. Now for Jesus to go to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were outcasts inferred no special status on this group of people, but was to demonstrate that he came to save all of the lost who would put their faith in him. There simply are no people that are outside “the grasp of the Holy,” as Lamarche puts it in her brand of plain old bad theology. We are all sinners saved by grace when we accept Christ, and none of us has any special status in the eyes of God. So it is the height of ridiculousness to assert that we should accept gay marriage in order to “move closer to the cause of grace.” The very reason we need grace is because we are sinners who have transgressed God’s law. So I would suggest Lamarche return to a reputable school for remedial training in both biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, and keep her own personal prejudices aside by rightly dividing the word of truth moving forward.

To wrap, I would like to add that Lamarche and folks of her ilk are a most destructive lot. Who would propose that the Bible supports the gay political agenda, under the false veil of justice and equality, when a homosexual lifestyle is clearly inimical to the teachings of the Bible? This is a most deliberate and wanton misinterpretation for anyone who believes the Bible has one shred of truth. My assertion is if Lamarche wants to make her argument, that she make it on other grounds without attempting to falsely marshal support from the Bible. I then may at least respect her argument. But her current attempt is to argue her position from the Bible while undermining its very foundations. This tactic is nothing less than unconscionable, and fair minded people should never give in to this type of grown-up biblical bullying.

“Solutions” for Social Justice?

2009-04-19T17:21:00.001-07:00

It has been a few weeks since my last post, and I would like to thank the few, the proud, the readers of my intermittent ramblings. During this time I’ve been doing some research on the founding principles of the US Constitution, Economics, and learning about a Catholic economic model called Distributism, which claims to be a “third way” between socialism and capitalism (specifically, avoiding the centralization of political power in the former, while avoiding the centralization of economic power in the latter). Including the benefits of Distributism (or some elements thereof) in my economic thinking was suggested by one of my Facebook friends, Brennan, and since my next blog idea was to discuss government “solutions” within the context of social justice, I thought it might be worth the time to do some research in this area. The idea of a post on government solutions for social justice was seeded by an exchange with another Facebook friend, Travis, who is a classmate at Talbot, working on his Masters in Theology. So my heartfelt thanks go out to both Brennan and Travis, to whom I will be looking for feedback. I will only touch on Distributism in this post, but will follow up in more detail in the next.

Travis and I both attend a conservative school of theology and are both evangelical Christians, but from a political perspective, Travis tends to lean Democratic and is an Obama supporter, while I lean conservative and was a McCain supporter in last November’s election (well actually, I wasn’t a true supporter but believed McCain was the “lesser of two evils,” as it were). On matters such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Travis and I are in general agreement. Where we tend to disagree, however, is with the specific role of government in terms of social justice, which includes providing more resources for inner city communities and schools as they continue their epic struggles to this day. Travis feels Democrats are offering solutions whereas Republicans are not, but admits that after over forty-plus years of Great Society social programs, there has been little progress in terms of lifting those in the inner city out of the generational poverty, crime, and lack of education that continues to haunt these communities.

My assertion is that the proper role of government at the federal level is to provide a level playing field and to vigorously enforce such, which is consistent with conservative principles of personal responsibility, a small federal government with limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and low taxes to spur economic growth such that opportunities abound for all who would take advantage of them. What I don’t believe is that government can “fix” these communities such that they will be able to effectively take part in the opportunities available. Why? Because I believe the problem has more to do with the decay of the family and moral values in those communities than any other factor. Though church attendance is high in inner-city black communities, the timeless values taught in church somehow do not effectively translate into action in terms of excellence in the classroom, strong family units, or abstinence until marriage as the ideal. So if the values which would preserve and uplift these communities are not practiced to any appreciable degree voluntarily, there is little government can do. But what the government does is to continue to sink federal and state dollars into these communities at the behest of liberal Democrats with little real results, only perpetuating a generational cycle of dependency, ensuring cheap and enduring votes for the Democratic party because of the perception that they are doing something. Apparently pushing for equal opportunity and the enforcement thereof, as championed by the Republican party during the civil rights era and beyond, is considered not doing anything.

What I am arguing as a conservative is that there is no government funded solution to the inner city problem that is purely a factor of government spending, particularly any solution as currently outlined by liberal Democrats. With a relativistic and mostly materialistic view of the universe, liberals simply don’t see that the problem is a lack of accountability as well as a lack of objective moral values and virtue in these communities. Over the past forty-plus years, liberals have rejected timeless and transcendent values that are vital to turning these communities around, instead promoting a “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” social policy concordant with a sex and passion-driven mainstream media, as if the only type of harm one can do to someone else is physical. From their perspective, one can engage in all other manner of risky and deviant behavior, but if one finds him or herself in a compromised situation, it is the government’s job to bail them out since they simply exercised their “right” to live their life in a capricious and irresponsible manner as they so decide with little thought to the consequences. In other words, one has rights but no concomitant responsibilities along with those rights.

The key issue Travis and I discussed was related to supply-side (or “trickle down”) economics as not benefitting the lower classes, and thus being a major factor in their strife. While I don’t believe supply-side economics necessarily are at fault, since everyone benefits through lower taxes for all that promote economic growth, I do see the downside to a purely individualistic approach and see some flavor of Distributism as a better model particularly within inner-city communities to harmonize the relationship between morals and economics, thus bringing healing to these communities. Distributism, as an economic system, promotes local control (through decentralization of political power into the lowest level possible), ownership of private property, self-reliance, industry and thrift, and community spirit. A Distributist system would, however, place spiritual and ethical demands on these communities to lessen playing out of their passions and appetites in favor of family unity, generosity, and cooperation. I envision this would consist of local government working with churches, charities, and private investors to setup guilds, cooperatives, credit unions, home-based businesses, and micro-credit banking to empower productive communities to become interdependent as opposed to being dependent. Though Distributist ideals have grown out of Catholic social doctrine, they do not demand adherence to the Catholic faith, but would rely on core Christian teachings as a mooring for economic and social policy within these communities.

I will expand further on how I envision Distributism working practically to promote social justice in my next post.

References:
Triolo, John F., 2008, Can Distributism Work? Part II. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.thecontrariansreview.com/Can_Distributism_Work__2.html, accessed on 19 April 2009.

Society for Distributism, 2009, Brochure. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.scribd.com/doc/13266644/The-Society-for-Distributism-Brochure, accessed on 19 April 2009.

Lovelle Mixon: Looking Forward and Backward

2009-04-02T23:26:00.001-07:00

Tonight I watched a Bill O’Reilly episode on Fox News, and was intrigued by the dialogue that took place between two guests over the recent rallies in Oakland honoring Lovelle Mixon, the man who fatally shot four officers before being killed by Oakland police last week. The purpose of the rally was reported to also have been a condemnation of the police. As the story is well reported I won’t belabor the details, but what was intriguing about this exchange was the clear contrast between these two black guests: one a talk-show radio host looking forward, and the other a Ph.D. still looking backward though he has risen from a similar situation as Mixon.

James T. Harris, a conservative talk-show radio host in Milwaukee, WI, condemned those in the rallies honoring Mixon, saying they had a “collective mindset” that was legitimate 30-40 years ago, but is simply illegitimate today. He cited the breakdown of the family and the declining role of religion as the true reasons that many black communities continue to be mired in poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Harris goes on to say that while solidarity was a necessary and helpful thing 40-50 years ago, it is now destructive because it continues to aim at past inequities that no longer exist to any wide extent.

On the other hand, we have Marc Lamont Hill, who holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. Hill is considered one of the leading “hip-hop generation intellectuals” in the country. Hill argued that those taking part in the rallies were not celebrating Mixon, but simply responding to “police terrorism” that has been endemic to their community for decades. O’Reilly responded, rightfully, that this was an inappropriate forum in which to voice their concern, particularly since Mixon was a rape suspect and a cop-killer who left three widows and ten children without a father. But Hill was undeterred. He said that Mixon had a right to “fundamental humanity,” so his life deserved to be celebrated though his actions clearly didn’t. O’Reilly wasn’t buying that either.

Harris then attacked Hill’s very premise that there was such thing as “police terrorism” in the black community. He argued that the “cups of sorrow” from previous generations continue to be propagated needlessly in the black community into the current generation, looking for terrorism where it doesn’t exist. He continued that blacks are now free, but too many continue to look to the past though times have clearly changed. O’Reilly graciously gave Hill the last word, which Hill used to blather on about how the rallies were challenging a “repressive and oppressive police state.” Thank goodness O’Reilly pulled the plug, as I had had enough of Hill and his whining. Hill is legitimate proof (as is Obama) that a black man, through hard work and determination, can achieve whatever his mind can conceive if he applies himself and accepts responsibility for his own life and his own family (ironic that I borrow a bit of phrasing from Jesse Jackson). This same opportunity is available to our brothers and sisters in Oakland if they would simply accept responsibility for their own communities.

So there you have it, one black man who acknowledges our horrid past of slavery and Jim Crow, but demonstrates thankfulness for what we have overcome, and is looking forward to the future (amen to that). Yet we have another black man who has achieved a high degree of success himself as an intellectual who writes, speaks, and appears on national television, but continues to look backward and rail on about inequities of the past. I think the only thing Hill really demonstrates in this exchange is the double standard too many blacks hold towards whites. We want them to treat us with decency and respect, but we don’t have to return the same when it suits us because of past wrongs. Those rallying around Mixon have no defense, as their cause célèbre is indefensible, but Hill sure gave it a hell of a try. Certainly, he could apply his Ph.D. training to defend causes that are actually of some benefit.

Seeking Truth

2009-03-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

I’m finally getting around to writing something mildly philosophical, but this post also goes to the core of my purpose for writing blogs, and tries to make this purpose more concrete. Obviously, I am a Christian, but I want to make it clear why I am a Christian, why it is important to me, and more importantly, why it would be important to you. First, my number one commitment is to truth, and not to Christianity (though I am committed to Christianity because I believe it is true). That may sound strange to some, but truth is the one thing all of us seek, whether consciously or subconsciously. In agreement with the great contemporary Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I would also assert that truth seeking is a part of our proper function. In essence, I’m arguing that we are naturally truth seeking, but our intellects and the noetic effects of sin both conspire to cause us to either reject the truth or to avoid the truth, respectively. Yet ultimately, we have a choice in the matter.

A close acquaintance of mine is a high-level executive for a Fortune 500 company, with hundreds of employees worldwide under his charge (and care). His brilliance is without question. Yet even as a Christian, he disagrees with me that humans are truth seeking, and further that we can even know the truth. Fundamentally, as he has related to me, he doesn’t believe there is objective truth, and by extension objective moral truth. In everyday life, however, he operates as if the very thing he denies actually exists. For example, at work he must communicate complex thoughts and ideas regarding company strategy and tactics to his team, ensuring that they are properly executed in a timely manner. His very presumption is that even though their minds are separate and distinct from his, there is a universal ability to interpret and execute on his directives in a manner that meets his approval. Moreover, he expects them to perform their work ethically. Without some universal standard of ethics, he would have no measure on which to punish actions he believed to be unethical. I can just imagine him calling one of his employees out on some unethical practice, and that employee responding that since ethics are relative, there isn’t a problem so they should just drop the whole thing. Now that would be a “career limiting move," but I digress.

So basically where I’m going with this post is that it is my belief that objective truth exists, that it is real, and that it encompasses moral truths that indicate what we ought to do. We put truth into practice in virtually every human experience whether cognizant of it or not. It is also my belief that Christianity best accords with truth, given the alternatives. Clearly, I don’t know this exhaustively, as no human has access to exhaustive knowledge. That is reality and is a part of the human condition. Given that caveat, with the best of my knowledge I believe it is my duty to work from core Christian beliefs that are transcendent and eternal. It is these truths on which our country and its Constitution were founded, whether from a deistic or orthodox Christian view of a creator. An atheistic or relativist view could not deliver the same as there would be no grounding basis or imperative other than force through monarchy, at a societal/cultural level through social contracts, or purely individual, all of which would be temporal and transitory at best (with the last being, effectively, “survival of the fittest”).

The Bible states that the [moral] law has been written on everyone’s heart, as described in Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33 (and yes, I am aware that things can and do go wrong, so I presume proper function for this law to be in effect). The knowledge of right and wrong is unmistakable; you can see this in an inchoate state in children even before they acquire language. Even Hitler knew what he was doing to the Jews was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to hide his gruesome handiwork. For him to know it was wrong, and for us to know it was wrong also, requires a universal rule or measure from which to determine right from wrong, i.e., some truth or truths. We Christians believe we have encountered truth, and are fully aware that we are all part of a fallen creation. Others, unfortunately, use their intellect and the sinful nature they have in common with us to override the truth that God has made so plain (cf. Romans 1:20).

Whoopi and Taxes

2009-03-10T16:16:00.000-07:00

For those who haven't had the chance to see Whoopi Goldberg's perspective on taxes on "The View," it's definitely worth viewing:

She makes a great argument that while she doesn't mind paying taxes and giving back, since she has done well financially, she still feels she's being punished by the government for her success. And Whoopi, I couldn't agree with you more. You see, I'm not jealous of your success, as I know that talented, entrepeneurial people like yourself are the folks that are taking risks and creating jobs for those of us who are employees. You and other business owners small and large are the engine and the driver of our economy. But your government, in it's current form led by the Democratic party, doesn't see it that way. And that's not to say it was considerably better under the previous Republican administration, since they strayed far away from core conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility. They received the "due penalty" of their error, and are now doing penance (I pray).

These days I often hear liberals say that Reaganomics have concentrated money at the top over the past 25 years, and now that Democrats control the Presidency and Congress, they will "redistribute" money back to the poor and the middle class. But here is the question: why do they believe those doing the "redistribution" can do a better job than properly regulated market forces? There will be a small, concentrated group of people performing the wealth redistribution (i.e., Obama and Congress), which means they will decide what to take from whom and to whom they will redistribute the proceeds. Do liberals really feel this is a job for government? And with the trillions of dollars this small group of people plan on redistributing, can they do this solely on the backs of the "rich," who make over $250,000? I don't think that's realistic. The middle class will have to participate in this ill-gotten, productivity killing scheme as well.

To demonstrate my view, please note the following summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data from 2006, showing each group's share of income taxes (source: Internal Revenue Service):

Top 1%: 39.89% (>$388,806)

Top 5%: 60.14% (>$153,542)

Top 10%: 70.79% (>$108,904)

Top 25%: 86.27% (>$64,702)

Top 50%: 97.01% (>$31,987)

Bottom 50%: 2.99% (<$31,987)

Note that the top 5% (Whoopi and other "greedy" folks making over $388,806), are already carrying 60% of the tax load, and that the top 50% (making over $31,987) are carrying 97.01%. The bottom 50% are paying 3% of the total tax load. Looking at these numbers, the issue of fairness comes in to play. If the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes, what is a "fair" amount for them to pay? 80%, 90%, 100%? Even if you ask the top 10% to carry all of the tax load, you're asking some that are making just a little over $100,000. That sounds like a lot of money in some states, but in states such as California and New York, that's middle class living at best in major metropolitan areas.

Let's again note that the bottom 50% pay a total of 3% of the taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, with the new and expandable refundable tax credits Obama's budget is proposing, the bottom 50% will pay NO taxes. This, the paper notes, "could cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government." So in this regard, the Democrats could permanently assure themselves both the Presidency and the Congress because they will have a plurality of voters that, with a little help, could vote themselves the largesse they feel they deserve. And I believe as politicians, they will look out for themselves first, since they will be in an elite class that wants to remain an elite class. If that means class warfare and redistribution of wealth as a means to that end, then so be it. The key question is what would happen if a portion of the top 50% got fed up with being penalized for achievement, and decided to cease being as productive? What would happen then? Inquiring minds want to know.

Helping My Liberal Friends to Understand the Conservative View – Part 2 of 3

2009-03-04T16:49:00.000-08:00

Whenever I offer any criticism of Obama's policies, some of my liberal friends accuse me of "bashing" him personally. I want to be emphatic that it is not my intent to "bash" Obama explicitly or implicitly, and certainly not personally. I simply believe his policies won't work and know that very little of the "investments" (that's code word for spending) and tax increases for the "rich" he is proposing are directly related to stimulating the economy. Instead of focusing on the economic crisis to restore confidence in our financial system, which is a difficult task within itself, he is using the crisis as an opportunity to conduct an aggressive social agenda through massive government spending that will change society as we know it. Those who support this grand redistribution of wealth plan either haven't done their homework or don't realize the unintended consequences of more and bigger government in every aspect of our lives.

Few of my friends understand what conservatism is about, and on what principles it stands. So I thought I would include excerpts from a recent speech by a well-known conservative that spoke to the heart of conservatism. Please carefully consider the following: "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people."

"When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government."

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the [sic] preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault."

"We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - - We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe."

"I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively."

The above speech was none other than that delivered by Rush Limbaugh at the recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Conference. Yes, Rush is a polarizing figure somewhat lacking in the social graces, and no, he is not the voice of the Republican party. But he is a (not the) voice for the conservative movement. He made it clear in the speech that he doesn't want Obama to fail if his policies are good for the country (e.g., economic growth, low taxes, liberty), but he wants Obama to fail if his policies will be detrimental to our Republic (i.e., federalization of health care, education, and energy through onerous taxation). The liberal media won't quote Rush in full context because it wouldn't be news, instead they make it news by saying that he wants Obama to fail and leave it at that. That isn't news, but it is irresponsible journalism.

* A fellow graduate student asked me to note that Rush's attribution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the preamble of the Constitution is incorrect, and that this phrase is actually found in the Declaration of Independence.

Are Blacks Too Invested in Obama’s Success?

2009-02-14T22:42:00.001-08:00

This is a particularly difficult blog for me to write, as I run the risk of further alienating my liberal friends, who somehow believe that I want to see Obama fail. This couldn’t be further from the truth, but more on that later. I feel that the black attitude towards Obama is important to consider, and hope that my friends will not take offense, but see this as a challenge to think a bit more deeply about how they perceive Obama, and how they see themselves in light of the Obama Presidency. The key issue here as it appears to me is that as the Obama Presidency goes, so goes the psyche of blacks that have invested far too much in his success as a source of our identity.

This week I posted an entry to FaceBook on the Fairness Doctrine, whose title happened to have Obama’s name. None of the criticism of my post was in response to the Fairness Doctrine, but was entirely about how Obama is fixing the mess that George Bush created or how Republicans just want to see Obama fail so that’s why they didn’t vote for the pork-laden, almost $800 billion stimulus package. In both cases, one would think there were simply no other available explanations. Without a lengthy treatise, I would like to first respond that George Bush was not alone in Washington. There is also a bicameral Congress composed of Republicans and Democrats, who are the ones that write and pass the laws, who could override George Bush’s veto pen if he didn’t sign a bill into law, and who could also prevent him from going to war. This is not a monarchy nor a dictatorship, but a republic. The President may set policy direction and use his office as a bully pulpit to encourage the passing of certain legislation, but he must ultimately depend on Congress to pass laws.

Any mess that Obama is cleaning up is the responsibility of George Bush and Congress, as well as policies carried over from previous administrations. While the Republicans spent recklessly when they controlled Congress (up until two years ago), it was Democrats who were largely responsible for encouraging the subprime mortgage mess that led to the financial crisis, through pressure they exerted on financial institutions to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and the sweetheart treatment they gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when these government sponsored enterprises were failing miserably. The very situation that created the opportunity for banks to engage in the dangerous financial instruments that led to the global financial crisis was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, ushered through Congress by Phil Gramm, a Republican, and signed into law by Bill Clinton. So there is plenty of blame to go around. Unlike many of my Democrat friends, however, as a Republican I have no problem criticizing my own party because I know it is made up of imperfect people like me.

Secondly, I cannot imagine that Republicans, en masse, want to see Obama fail. There could certainly be a small minority of ill wishers, which is within the bounds of the human condition, but somehow my liberal friends don’t see that human nature applies to Democrats as well. What we need to understand is that there is no reason to believe that Obama’s policies are necessarily efficacious and should thus go unopposed because the people voted for "change." Success and failure cross color and racial boundaries, and are most decidedly colorblind. The fact is there are fundamental philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans, and it is entirely reasonable that for these reasons Republicans have not signed on to the stimulus bill, instead proposing another version they see as focused on stimulus and infrastructure, without additional massive spending lacking a stimulative effect that future taxpayers must pay back with interest.

From a black perspective, having too much invested in Obama’s success because he is black will only be a hindrance to the realization of a colorblind society, and will be a huge disappointment to the psyche of blacks if his policies prove to be unsuccessful. Obama’s successes should have no bearing on the identity of black Americans, and neither his failures. Obama’s successes or failures should reflect on Obama as an individual, and on the viability of the U.S. government to maintain a free republic based on free market capitalism, instead of an inevitable slide towards a nanny state (which appears to be where we are headed). Now is the time to set race aside and evaluate Obama solely on the content of his character and his ability to successfully govern. That means he is open game for criticism on any all policy decisions, and we should all welcome the debate.

An Apology and A Way Forward

2009-02-11T21:58:00.000-08:00

I am deeply appreciative of the feedback received, both positive and not so positive, from my friends and acquaintances that have been following my new blog. As I value your opinions highly, I totally hear you that the blogs tend to run a little long (ok, way long). The reason for that was force of habit, as I was writing in an Op-Ed format which is typically about 850 words long. So I will attempt to keep these shorter and sweeter moving forward.

I am aware that my posts are controversial, particularly for my liberal-leaning friends. But what I ask is that you evaluate my arguments based on their own merits, even though you may disagree with my premises and ultimate conclusions. I don’t allow comments on the blog because it is amazing how much vitriol people will spew when they can do so anonymously, and I’m not particularly fond of others lobbing hate bombs at me from the privacy of their corner of the internet, hidden from view. However, for those who know me on FaceBook or communicate with me via e-mail, please feel free to open a dialog and express yourself. This is not warfare, but good natured debate. I only ask that if you take a position, be able to defend it in a cogent, logical, and consistent manner (and yes, I know some of you feel that I don't do that, but I digress).

For those unfamiliar with the German word Weltanschauung, it may be translated as worldview, and it is something that we all have. According to Wikipedia, worldview “refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.” So if I have an idea of your basic worldview, I can, with great certainty, know how you would respond to a great variety of situations, because worldview is pervasive. We all, to some degree, can feel out, or sense, what opinions various people may have through acquaintance. But understanding worldview provides deeper insight than we can glean from our senses alone, because the added ingredients are rational thought and analysis through the study of first philosophy.

So now you may be thinking that all we need is more philosophy, and even more, another dry philosopher. Fair enough. My promise to you is this won’t be a dry tour, but a dynamic introduction to the philosopher within you, underpinned by your most basic of beliefs for which no proof is required. These basic beliefs are brute facts that you have accepted, becoming the presuppositions that support your overall belief system. In posts to come, we will explore worldview, particularly as it relates to liberal versus conservative thought. And one thing in particular we will learn is that all politics and ideologies have their basis in worldview and underlying presuppositions. So anyone who criticizes another for being “political” or “ideological” must tread lightly, as their own politics and ideology are inseparable from their worldview. In essence, we should not expect politics or ideology to be inconsistent with worldview. More concretely, there will be certain things that we should never expect Republicans and Democrats to agree on, since certain aspects of their respective worldviews are simply incompatible (unless of course, you are Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that's another story).

Again, thank you for your feedback. I look forward to our journey moving forward.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

No Love for Black Conservatives

2009-01-30T21:52:00.000-08:00

As of this writing, Michael Steele, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, has today been elected the first black Republican National Committee Chairman. Already, the mainstream media and liberal politicians are putting out hit pieces on him, and are suggesting that the Republican Party is “pandering” to the “African-American” community (whatever that means, as I consider myself an American who just happens to be black, though I’m more German/Irish than African). It is odd that I don’t recall the same folks saying that Obama’s candidacy was pandering to African Americans. And I further recall that there was elation over the progress that blacks have made when Obama won the Democratic nomination. But now there is none of the same over an exceptionally talented and clearly qualified black man who won the RNC Chair? Oh, I get it. He’s not a liberal so he doesn’t count, and neither does any other black conservative such as myself. I guess we haven’t “come far enough” for them.

Just a couple of weeks ago, civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin Hooks was interviewed on Dan Rather’s weekly show, Dan Rather Reports. When asked about Obama and potential Supreme Court appointments, Hooks said that we need a black man on the Supreme Court who would speak for black people. Dan Rather reminded Hooks that Clarence Thomas was a black Supreme Court Justice, but Hooks’ riposte was that Thomas didn’t count because he was a conservative. Hmmm… even black civil rights leaders don’t approve of black conservatives. Of course, Dan Rather did not challenge Hooks any further, but the obvious question is what would a Supreme Court Justice do that would specifically speak for black Americans without speaking for all Americans? To my knowledge blacks have achieved full civil rights at the level of the highest court in the land, so there is nothing I can think of, given my limited knowledge, that blacks as a group are lacking which wouldn’t apply to every other American. So I must be missing something.

What I don’t think many of us understand is that there are many forms of slavery or servitude other than the traditional plantation view to which we have become accustomed. There is also ideological slavery, whereby as a people we line ourselves up en masse behind one political party that is not necessarily in our best interests. It can certainly be argued that Obama garnered 95% of the black vote nationally due to its historical nature, but overall the country voted for Obama 56% to 44% for McCain. There is huge statistical significance in the disparity of this vote. The black vote was not even close to national statistics, so ostensibly the landslide vote in the black community was race-based, party-based, or some combination of the two (and potentially others not considered here). As an undergraduate mathematics major, I am struck that this combination of factors was able to produce a 39% point swing, and I don’t believe it bodes well for blacks. If race was the larger factor, then we pulled the lever for Obama with little faith that our country would vote for a black man and found out afterwards that it would. If party was the larger factor, then we have arguably, in effect, become slaves to the Democratic Party.

The lack of faith in our electorate is certainly a forgivable and understandable reason for the black statistical vote, but it potentially indicates that while we expect colorblindness from others, we were not ready to deliver the same as a group by simply voting for who we thought was the best candidate. In the latter case of us voting for the Democratic Party as a whole, I believe the issue is that blacks are rallying around a party that is often in conflict with our traditional values brought about by a deep Christian faith that has sustained us as a people over the past four hundred years. What we don’t understand is that we’re buying into a philosophy of progressive liberalism, which is about more and bigger government that saps our progress as a people by offering us (and everyone else) dependence on government instead of self-reliance and a level playing field. This is a party that is largely for abortion with no restrictions, even to the point of death for a baby that has the audacity of hope to survive a late term abortion. This is a party that does not uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, but encourages other arrangements as equivalent. This is a party that does not believe in protecting our borders, which hurts our national security and allows undocumented workers to siphon public services from low wage blacks. What’s worse, this party demonizes blacks that don’t fall into line (such as the aforementioned Michael Steele). If that isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is.

How soon we have forgotten the Republican Party, whose principles of limited government, freedom, liberty, and self-reliance for all brought us out of the previous slavery we knew all too well, only to have to have us fall into another type of our own free will within a generation.

Helping My Liberal Friends to Understand the Conservative View – Part 1 of 3

2009-01-26T21:33:00.000-08:00

Since joining FaceBook, it has become clear to my growing number of FaceBook friends who have either kept up with me over the years or with whom I am just now re-connecting after many years, that I am a conservative. I wanted to take this opportunity to represent what it means for me to be a conservative, and why I’m not as radical as some might think, particularly since I am not an Obama supporter on the basis of his liberal policies. What I ask, my dear liberal friends, is that you simply try to understand my worldview, even though you may not agree with it. My hope is simply that you will see it as well-reasoned and thoughtful, in a spirit of love and humility with no malice towards anyone. I ask for no more.

I think the first thing to understand about the conservative view is that universally we believe moral law and moral obligations, though they are abstract entities, are real and are objective as opposed to subjective. This is consistent with the view that there is objective reality, and that our intellects allow us to gain access to that reality (contra Kant, et al.). Objective reality exists whether we are here to experience it or not. In other words, there are abstract entities that are transcendent and eternal, which do not change over time. This all leads to the belief in a necessary, eternal being that is not contingent as is our universe, but has always existed. There has always been something and never has there been a time when there was nothing. That something that has always been is the necessary, self-existent being who is the creator of our universe.

So what does this all mean? Essentially that there is a creator who has gifted us with an intelligible universe that faithfully observes mathematical and physical laws, and who has endowed us with the intellect to be able to make sense of these laws so that we can explore and enjoy the earth on which we live and the vastness of the universe. Concomitant with this intellect is free will which can be used for good or evil. Something inside each of use innately knows right from wrong, good from bad, because that is how we were created.

The belief in a creator is fundamental to the founding of our Republic, as specified in the Declaration of Independence which holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, amongst those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without a creator, there simply is no objective standard on which to base morality, and thus society would be otherwise based on social contracts (a la Rousseau) that may be forced on the minority by the majority. But what is interesting here is that with no objective morality, there is no moral imperative to regulate any type of behavior. That is why I wonder how an atheist would ponder the rightness or wrongness of something stolen from him, because logically, there would be no right and wrong. He would be “justified” only in simply following his instincts to claim his property by either intimidation or physically force if necessary.

Many liberals are opposed to conservatives because we believe in an objective morality that they say we want to “impose” on them, and that we have no right to do so. But have they stopped to think that they live in a society where morals are enforced on a daily basis by the laws of the land? Every society is imposing morality of some sort on every one of its citizens, so it really is a question of what morals are being enforced, not if they are. Otherwise, if there was no moral code, we would live in a purely Darwinian system of survival of the fittest, just as we see in the animal world. So my assertion is that for those who don’t believe in objective morality, the only thing that would be logically consistent would be to entirely give up all government and all laws in favor of a purely Darwinian system. In actuality, there would be a benefit because natural selection would be able to present itself in full force, winnowing out the weakest amongst us allowing only the fittest to survive. The human race would have upward genetic mobility instead of a genetic code that is deteriorating due to a lack of natural selection daily and hourly scrutinizing who will survive and who won’t. But of course, we have already seen where this type of thinking leads, and since I don’t buy into the Darwinian paradigm as it currently stands anyway, I will leave it there.

To close out the first of this three part series, what I’m fundamentally trying to establish is something pointed out by Ronald Reagan, which is the gradual fraying of our country’s moral and economic fabric. As we move further and further away from the principles of our country’s founding fathers and the belief in objective morality, we slide further towards socialism, with the expectation that government will solve all of our problems because we can’t solve those problems ourselves through capitalism and free enterprise. Conservatives believe in a society of liberty and freedom, and that foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will. However, it is up to us to use that free will in a manner that best upholds objective moral laws and obligations, knowing that we are fallen and that we will always be at war with the evil in each of our hearts.

Addendum to My Global Warming Post

2009-01-25T08:58:00.000-08:00

One thing I neglected to mention in my previous post is the concept I have coined "means to end thinking". I will discuss this as a specific topic in more detail in a future post, but for now my point is that while those peddling the global warming hysteria may indeed mean well, I believe they see no problem with inflating the issue because the means, taking sweeping actions in all haste to become carbon neutral, justifies the end, which is saving the planet. In other words, it doesn't matter what means you use to get to some well-intentioned goal, what matters is the end goal. I believe this dangerous thinking, because there is the presumption that even if the case may be grossly overstated yet the end result is achieved, then we're all better off regardless. The problem with this thinking is the dramatic impact such means may have on the global economy. Stifling economic growth through byzantine regulations will certainly have its own unintended consequences, and will be a harsh reality imposed on real people in the present based on a virtual future predicted by a computer model. Something does not compute here.

Let’s Cool Down the Hysteria over Global Warming

2009-01-24T19:59:00.000-08:00

I first want to assert that despite the disparity of viewpoints on global warming, I believe there is an element that most participating in the debate have in common. That something is the desire to be responsible stewards of the earth so that future generations can thrive on this one and only earth we call home. If we are to continue to flourish as a species, this means continued use of the natural resources the earth has to offer, some of which are renewable, and some of which are not. As imperfect creatures with limited albeit growing knowledge, we will always struggle to meet the ever increasing resource demands of a rapidly growing world population. Yet we have discovered that long term sustainability is critical to the future, which requires as minimal an impact on the environment as possible, judicious use of non-renewable resources, and maximum use of renewable resources.

My main grievance with the subject of global warming is the mass hysteria and fear mongering surrounding it, and the utter lack of balance and legitimate debate in terms of defining precisely what global warming is, what its causes are, and what its potential dangers may be. What many don’t understand is that long term warming and cooling trends have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, and that it is only very recently and for a very short period of time on the geological time scale that homo sapiens sapiens has graced the earth with his intellect and capacity to impact the environment through the building of advanced civilizations and supporting industries. Thus, I am a bit skeptical that in 200 years or so of carbon-based industrial output, human activity has become the primary cause of global warming, or has even contributed greatly.

Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed that the “science is settled” on global warming, but this violates an important principle of scientific theories. Scientific theories are provisional, and are constantly subjected to falsification. This couldn’t be more applicable than in the case of global warming, which is largely predicted by computer models that have serious limitations due to the sheer complexity of the climate system. With such complexity, given the everyday uncertainty we experience with weekly weather predictions, is it wise for us to put complete faith in some computer models that are projecting increased temperatures and rising oceans fifty to one hundred years into the future? I would not until there is more data and more open debate. Regardless, I will put my faith in the good earth that has been responding to climate change for millions of years, and also the brilliant minds working on promising technologies that will allow society and industry to have as little impact on the earth as possible so it can continue to do its job of supporting life. So there is no need for panic even if the direst predictions prove to have merit, and it turns out that man is not the main cause of global warming.

Thus, my suggestion is that we cool down the hysteria and exercise common sense. The fact is we don’t know for certain to what degree human activity contributes to global warming. What we do know is that regardless of the cause, we need to be the best stewards of the earth that we can in order to assure future survival, to the best that we know how. I emphasize the best that we know how because we are imperfect beings that will always be limited in knowledge compared to what can be known about the universe. Introducing carbon taxes and carbon offsets would be inane given our current understanding, would be ridiculously complicated, and would only benefit those that administer them and make money off the transactions. Few would win in this shell game while most everyone forced to play would lose liberty and freedom.

We should diligently work towards solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy that provide the least impact to the environment, simply because it is the right thing to do both individually and corporately, and not because government bureaucrats are buying into doom and gloom fifty years from now if we don’t. Private industry based on market forces should drive this innovation with encouragement and support from government, but without productivity sapping mandates and needless meddling. It will take time over the next couple of decades for new technologies to mature both technically and economically to the point that they can carry the load for home and industrial energy generation. So in the short term we need to increase domestic exploration for petroleum and natural gas. With respect to transportation, we must begin the transition to natural gas and renewable alcohol-based fuels in order to power cars, trucks, and aircraft, which will considerably cut down on CO2 emissions.

In the end analysis, what allows societies to continue and to thrive in concert with the earth are the day to day individual and corporate decisions that build up to a collective result. Yielding that power to centralized government with the expectation that a few can direct and control desired outcomes has always failed in the forms of socialism and communism. We cannot effectively meet the challenges of today and tomorrow any other way than a free market system with limited government and sensible regulations, and an informed populous that works together to achieve great ends.

References:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=369494
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84421
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Gay Marriage and California's Proposition 8

2009-01-23T21:56:00.000-08:00

Few things get me as riled up as being called an African-American (I am a black American of mixed ancestry), and moreover, being marginalized by the mainstream media since I am a black conservative who is not the unthinking acolyte of the Democratic Party they prefer. I’m so sorry to disappoint. But that discussion is for another day, as the next thing on my list is the notion that I am also a religious bigot for having voted in favor of California’s Proposition 8.

It deeply offends me that the issue of gay marriage would in any way be compared to the civil rights movement that gave blacks the long overdue freedoms we enjoy today. Over the course of almost 400 years my ancestors were subject to unspeakable brutality and almost complete exclusion from the everyday lives that white Americans enjoyed. Today all Americans, both gay and straight, have equal protections under the law in terms of their ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. So I would strongly disagree with those that have termed being gay “the new black.” Thankfully no gay person as a matter of course has to live in fear of being beaten without provocation, hung by lynch mobs, having their houses burned down by hooded night riders, or being denied a meal at their local restaurant. We have indeed come a long way as a country. Thus it is not my belief that gays are being denied a civil right since traditional marriage has been defined as exclusively between a man and a woman.

My bold assertion is that the issue of gay marriage is a societal one, and not one of civil rights. I say this because marriage itself is not a right in the first place, whether gay or straight. Traditional marriage is an institution, which has been considered a sacred commitment between a man and a woman for millennia. The relation between man and woman is clearly the natural order that allows for the continuation of our species, and is also devoid of the inevitable conflicts of polygamy or concubinage, which have arguably been around as long as marriage (of which the Bible describes but does not condone, contrary to popular belief). Marriage has also been considered a stabilizing force in society, which is precisely why it has been encouraged by governments over the centuries as an institution to be upheld.

Now proponents of gay marriage will argue that marriage should be defined as a lifelong commitment to a loving relationship, and that this commitment is equivalent regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved. But from a human physiology perspective, it is obvious there is no equivalence due to the inability of same sex couples to naturally procreate (miracles of modern science notwithstanding). What is equally important and of even greater impact is the societal aspect of redefining marriage. If the definition of marriage were to be expanded to include gay marriage, then it would have to be sufficiently flexible to include any and all possible arrangements of loving, committed relationships that must include those that are polygamous as well as incestuous. It would be unconscionable to allow gay marriage on the grounds of civil rights and then deny the same rights to those who feel their legitimately consenting relationships are also equivalent to traditional marriage.

In order to make the civil case for gay marriage, it is often argued that being gay has a genetic component, which is a topic currently under heated scientific debate. We may never know for sure to what degree this may be the case, but what we do know is that the practice of gay relationships is based on conscious behavior, unlike the purely genetic basis for skin color. So if the issue continues to be fought on the grounds of civil rights, then it opens the door to virtually any group of people declaring themselves to be a minority that can legitimately claim certain civil rights. Add a genetic component or propensity, and conscious behavior becomes a nonfactor giving way to genetic determinism. Is society ready to offer minority status and concomitant protections based on what genes may cause us to do?

Fundamentally, the issue before us is societal as well as behavioral, in that we must decide if marriage will be redefined to include any and all arrangements amongst consenting adults that are committed to lifelong loving relationships as normative. If we open marriage up to interpretation, then let’s be fair and allow legitimate parties to decide if they wish to declare their arrangement as marriage. Clearly, I am not in favor of this approach, as my goal is to point out that a culture which wholeheartedly discards long held and well-reasoned societal norms forged over centuries, in the misguided spirit of relativism and inclusivism, is on a slippery slope that descends into irrelevance and ultimately ruin from within. I am not saying that the redefinition of marriage accomplishes this end, but would be a major step towards a culture increasingly devoid of the requisite norms that buttress all great societies.