...Alongside Jim Lehrer would be a small panel of folks sitting in front of computers with connections to LexisNexis, the Congressional Quarterly, and Google.
Whenever one candidate says something like "My opponent said X," or "My opponent voted against Y," or whatever, and then his opponent objects that this is not true, Lehrer would cut both their mikes and hand it over to the panel. They would look up the relevant records and find out who is right.
Whichever candidate turns out to be lying would be instructed that, if he repeats or references that lie again, he forfeits the remainder of his time to answer questions.
I also think they should be strapped to polygraphs.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
In Defense of Big Government
Most of the conservative discourse in which anti-government sentiment arises is economic, not social. The government is despised by conservatives mainly when it is placed in opposition to the free market.
There are several perspectives from which to critique the free market, and they've been explored far more ably by others. There is just one point that I'd like to make about it.
An article of faith among the free-marketeers is that the public sector is always inefficient, slow, incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful when compared to the private sector. I firmly believe that was true when Adam Smith first wrote about the invisible hand, but at this stage of capitalism's development, I don't think it is true any longer.
The notion of government bloat and waste versus private industriousness and efficiency was conceived centuries ago, when it used to be the case. It was the case then because it was when the private sector used to be made up of nothing but family businesses and local merchants -– what we now call “small business.” The advent of the multinational corporation has not just changed that, it has left it behind.
Billion-dollar multinational corporations didn't exist when The Wealth of Nations was written (except maybe the Vatican -- anyone dare to hold them up as a nimble, efficient, transparent organization?). Adam Smith could never have imagined that a single business, a single merchant, a single vendor could grow to the size that modern technology has allowed.
The only way to organize a human enterprise above a certain size is to make it a bureaucracy. Three or four generations ago the government was the only easily visible domain of bureaucracy. Now the corporate bureaucracy is at least as substantial.
It is bureaucracy that is the source of inefficiency and waste. It is bureaucracy that rewards incompetence and fosters corruption. These are innate characteristics of bureaucracy, regardless of which sector it occupies. To ascribe these characteristics to public bureaucracies, but exempt from them private bureaucracies, is a logical leap not supported by the facts. Doing so is the result of an attempt to apply notions of capitalism to a market that only passingly resembles the markets that existed when those notions were conceived.
If both private and public sector are just a pair of distinct arenas within which the Nerf-and-PVC gladiators of bureaucracy battle for surrogate glory, then what makes one innately better than the other? They are both structured identically, so why would one be orders of magnitude more or less lean or nimble? It’s like watching two champion sumo wrestlers running the hundred-yard dash with the expectation that whichever one wins will do so by a wide margin.
I would argue that if our lives must be shaped by enormous, bureaucratic concentrations of wealth and power, it is better for those concentrations to be democratically accountable to us. Corporate boardrooms make just as many decisions that affect our lives as do the White House and the halls of Congress, but none of those corporate bureaucrats can ever be voted out of power when they fuck things up. At least the government bureaucrats can.
It's time for conservatives to stop basing their economic judgments solely on a Scottish polemic written in 1776. Times have changed. No one doubts the invisible hand still exists, but with the advent of the multinational corporation, it spends more time than ever clenched into a bludgeoning fist.
There are several perspectives from which to critique the free market, and they've been explored far more ably by others. There is just one point that I'd like to make about it.
An article of faith among the free-marketeers is that the public sector is always inefficient, slow, incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful when compared to the private sector. I firmly believe that was true when Adam Smith first wrote about the invisible hand, but at this stage of capitalism's development, I don't think it is true any longer.
The notion of government bloat and waste versus private industriousness and efficiency was conceived centuries ago, when it used to be the case. It was the case then because it was when the private sector used to be made up of nothing but family businesses and local merchants -– what we now call “small business.” The advent of the multinational corporation has not just changed that, it has left it behind.
Billion-dollar multinational corporations didn't exist when The Wealth of Nations was written (except maybe the Vatican -- anyone dare to hold them up as a nimble, efficient, transparent organization?). Adam Smith could never have imagined that a single business, a single merchant, a single vendor could grow to the size that modern technology has allowed.
The only way to organize a human enterprise above a certain size is to make it a bureaucracy. Three or four generations ago the government was the only easily visible domain of bureaucracy. Now the corporate bureaucracy is at least as substantial.
It is bureaucracy that is the source of inefficiency and waste. It is bureaucracy that rewards incompetence and fosters corruption. These are innate characteristics of bureaucracy, regardless of which sector it occupies. To ascribe these characteristics to public bureaucracies, but exempt from them private bureaucracies, is a logical leap not supported by the facts. Doing so is the result of an attempt to apply notions of capitalism to a market that only passingly resembles the markets that existed when those notions were conceived.
If both private and public sector are just a pair of distinct arenas within which the Nerf-and-PVC gladiators of bureaucracy battle for surrogate glory, then what makes one innately better than the other? They are both structured identically, so why would one be orders of magnitude more or less lean or nimble? It’s like watching two champion sumo wrestlers running the hundred-yard dash with the expectation that whichever one wins will do so by a wide margin.
I would argue that if our lives must be shaped by enormous, bureaucratic concentrations of wealth and power, it is better for those concentrations to be democratically accountable to us. Corporate boardrooms make just as many decisions that affect our lives as do the White House and the halls of Congress, but none of those corporate bureaucrats can ever be voted out of power when they fuck things up. At least the government bureaucrats can.
It's time for conservatives to stop basing their economic judgments solely on a Scottish polemic written in 1776. Times have changed. No one doubts the invisible hand still exists, but with the advent of the multinational corporation, it spends more time than ever clenched into a bludgeoning fist.
Conservatives and Government
I was watching this talk again (if you haven't watched it yet, please, please do), and noticed that Haidt says something about conservatism that seems at odds with my understanding of it.
He says "Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; they want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; they want order even at some cost to those on the bottom."
At first blush, this makes sense. But it highlights a contradiction: if conservatives honor institutions that promote order, then why is there such widespread loathing and disdain for government in conservative circles? Why aren't conservatives staunch defenders of government, given that it is the ultimate order-promoting institution we have?
Haidt seems to be saying that, at root, the distinction between liberals and conservatives isn't so much that they have different morals per se; it's that they have opposite polarities with respect to order and chaos. So how come it's the pro-chaos group that respects government, and the pro-order group that wishes it would just go away?
The word "institution" has multiple meanings:
2a: a signficant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture
2b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character
So there is a more concrete, organizational interpretation, and a more abstract, behavioral interpretation. People who speak of marriage, for instance, as an institution, are relying on the abstract interpretation.
Perhaps conservatives do honor and respect the idea of government, as an institution in the abstract, but dislike the concrete organization that currently fills that role?
That's possible, but it's a perspective not unique to conservatives. There are plenty of liberals who also honor government in the abstract, but dislike, say, the Bush administration, or whatever other concrete incarnation of that abstraction currently exists.
The conservative attitude seems to go deeper. They don't seem to honor or respect even the idea of government. "That government is best which governs least" doesn't discriminate -- it's a statement of principle that applies equally well to representative democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, whatever.
So we're back where we started: government is vital to stability and order, yet it's also the favorite whipping boy of those whose morality is wired to value order and stability over fairness. How can this be?
He says "Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; they want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; they want order even at some cost to those on the bottom."
At first blush, this makes sense. But it highlights a contradiction: if conservatives honor institutions that promote order, then why is there such widespread loathing and disdain for government in conservative circles? Why aren't conservatives staunch defenders of government, given that it is the ultimate order-promoting institution we have?
Haidt seems to be saying that, at root, the distinction between liberals and conservatives isn't so much that they have different morals per se; it's that they have opposite polarities with respect to order and chaos. So how come it's the pro-chaos group that respects government, and the pro-order group that wishes it would just go away?
The word "institution" has multiple meanings:
2a: a signficant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture
2b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character
So there is a more concrete, organizational interpretation, and a more abstract, behavioral interpretation. People who speak of marriage, for instance, as an institution, are relying on the abstract interpretation.
Perhaps conservatives do honor and respect the idea of government, as an institution in the abstract, but dislike the concrete organization that currently fills that role?
That's possible, but it's a perspective not unique to conservatives. There are plenty of liberals who also honor government in the abstract, but dislike, say, the Bush administration, or whatever other concrete incarnation of that abstraction currently exists.
The conservative attitude seems to go deeper. They don't seem to honor or respect even the idea of government. "That government is best which governs least" doesn't discriminate -- it's a statement of principle that applies equally well to representative democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, whatever.
So we're back where we started: government is vital to stability and order, yet it's also the favorite whipping boy of those whose morality is wired to value order and stability over fairness. How can this be?
Check the Comments!
Although I haven't put up any new posts since Friday the 19th, the last week has seen a flurry of activity in the comments section. Check out "The Masculinity of Taxes" and "McCain" for some interesting back-and-forth in the comments.
P.S. Another actual post is on the way.
P.S. Another actual post is on the way.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Masculinity of Taxes
Although it is only seldom explicitly mentioned by conservatives, it does seem to be a pretty well-established theme on the right -- call it a broad-based subconscious belief -- that liberals are effeminate and weak. From Schwarzenegger's "girlie-men" quip to the neocons' relentless warrior-worship, the unstated message of the right's rhetoric seems to be: real men are conservatives, and liberals are a bunch of pussies.
At the same time, by far the most popular plank of the Republican party is a call for minimal taxation. Liberals often get so caught up in the debate over social issues that they forget that 50% of Republicans have no particular ideology or belief system at all, other than "I don't like taxes."
Granted, taxes are a pain. In the financial world, taxes are pain. In terms of this metaphor, 50% of Republicans have dedicated their lives to the avoidance of pain.
Imagine a person whose only concern in life was the avoidance of physical pain. At best, this would create a very stressful, brittle way of living; at worst, it would be a form of retardation. Such fear of the inevitable, such a desperate unwillingness to reconcile oneself with the existence of a such a simple, albeit admittedly unpleasant, fact of life, is the ultimate in abject weakness.
Pain can be good. It plays a vital role in maintaining our health. You can feel pain even when doing things that are good for you, like growing or exercising. Pain is a reliable indicator that something noteworthy is happening.
If such paralyzing fear of the slightest pain weren't a pathological condition, a form of OCD, then I would be uncharitable enough to say: those people are the ones who really sound like a bunch of pussies to me.
So, die-hard fiscal conservatives, it's time to man up. We obviously can't leave control of the markets to a bunch of girlie-men like you.
At the same time, by far the most popular plank of the Republican party is a call for minimal taxation. Liberals often get so caught up in the debate over social issues that they forget that 50% of Republicans have no particular ideology or belief system at all, other than "I don't like taxes."
Granted, taxes are a pain. In the financial world, taxes are pain. In terms of this metaphor, 50% of Republicans have dedicated their lives to the avoidance of pain.
Imagine a person whose only concern in life was the avoidance of physical pain. At best, this would create a very stressful, brittle way of living; at worst, it would be a form of retardation. Such fear of the inevitable, such a desperate unwillingness to reconcile oneself with the existence of a such a simple, albeit admittedly unpleasant, fact of life, is the ultimate in abject weakness.
Pain can be good. It plays a vital role in maintaining our health. You can feel pain even when doing things that are good for you, like growing or exercising. Pain is a reliable indicator that something noteworthy is happening.
If such paralyzing fear of the slightest pain weren't a pathological condition, a form of OCD, then I would be uncharitable enough to say: those people are the ones who really sound like a bunch of pussies to me.
So, die-hard fiscal conservatives, it's time to man up. We obviously can't leave control of the markets to a bunch of girlie-men like you.
Psychology of Conservative-Liberal Continuum
Norbert Ohlenbusch alerted me to the existence of an extraordinary talk by psychologist Jonathan Haidt. It's less than 20 minutes long; I highly recommend it. It provides a very useful vocabulary that both ends of the political spectrum can use to understand why people can hold positions other than theirs and still claim the moral high ground.
The first few minutes can be rough going if you're a conservative; the live audience is mostly liberal, and so Haidt caters to that with a few cheap shots. But once he gets going, the substance of the talk is extremely valuable to thinkers on both sides.
The fact that people are doing research on this sort of thing gives me hope that we might someday be able to push the competitive mindset out of politics and replace it with something better.
The first few minutes can be rough going if you're a conservative; the live audience is mostly liberal, and so Haidt caters to that with a few cheap shots. But once he gets going, the substance of the talk is extremely valuable to thinkers on both sides.
The fact that people are doing research on this sort of thing gives me hope that we might someday be able to push the competitive mindset out of politics and replace it with something better.
Muslim In Moderation
One of Charles Johnson's repeated talking points goes something like this:
We keep hearing that not all Muslims are terrorists, that there are many more moderate Muslims than radicals, that we shouldn't judge the moderates on the basis of the radicals. That's fine in theory, but how come we never hear anything from the moderates? Where are the news conferences and opinion polls and press releases from Muslim moderate organizations condemning the acts of the radicals?
I've always thought it was a valid point; I've been on the lookout for such dissension in the Muslim ranks as well. And it looks like we finally got some.
Charles Johnson will probably think this is too little, too late, but there is one aspect of it that greatly reassures me that we have a lot more in common with Arab Muslims than we might think: the one issue that roused them from their slumber and sparked genuine outrage was an authority figure trying to interfere with their ability to watch TV.
Take away rights and freedoms, we won't blink. But fuck with our TV, and we'll take to the streets.
We keep hearing that not all Muslims are terrorists, that there are many more moderate Muslims than radicals, that we shouldn't judge the moderates on the basis of the radicals. That's fine in theory, but how come we never hear anything from the moderates? Where are the news conferences and opinion polls and press releases from Muslim moderate organizations condemning the acts of the radicals?
I've always thought it was a valid point; I've been on the lookout for such dissension in the Muslim ranks as well. And it looks like we finally got some.
Charles Johnson will probably think this is too little, too late, but there is one aspect of it that greatly reassures me that we have a lot more in common with Arab Muslims than we might think: the one issue that roused them from their slumber and sparked genuine outrage was an authority figure trying to interfere with their ability to watch TV.
Take away rights and freedoms, we won't blink. But fuck with our TV, and we'll take to the streets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)