Author: Mike

I am a patent attorney in Lexington, Kentucky. My law firm web site is http://www.coblenzlaw.com. I ran for State Representative in 2010 and lost in the primary. Many of these posts are based on writing that I did for that election. Rather than delete it all, I decided to dump it onto the internet.

Through The Looking Glass

When Alice went through the looking glass she met a giant egg named Humpty Dumpty. After a brief discussion of their names, and what their names must mean, Humpty Dumpty informed Alice that “When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Conservatives call Obamacare “socialism.” The main component of Obamacare is the health care exchange, which is a web site where consumers can select insurance policies offered by a group of private insurance providers. The health care exchange is a marketplace of private insurance policies, and was developed as a conservative idea based on free market principles. Socialism began as the idea that the government controls the means of production, but has morphed into the idea that the government provides services once provided by private enterprise. Many countries have a national health service where the government runs hospitals, and therefore provides health services. That’s socialized medicine. A government website for private health insurance is little different than a city government providing a place for a farmers market. The fact that the Lexington Farmers’ market takes place at the city owned Cheapside Park doesn’t make it a socialist endeavor, any more than “Obamacare” is socialized medicine.

Many Republicans, including Representative Andy Barr, said that it was President Obama that shut down the government. This runs directly counter to recent history, which must be known to anyone who pays attention to the news. Conservative Republicans, led by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, said for months that they could extract concessions from President Obama by tying changes to the Affordable Care Act to the fight over funding the government. They explicitly talked about shutting down the government months ago. And then when it happened they blamed Obama. “We’ll shut down the government” became “he shut down the government.” Not only is that supreme chutzpah, it also makes mush of words.

The health care exchanges under Obamacare went live on October 1. On October 3 Kentucky Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul published an Opinion piece in the Kentucky business magazine the Lane Report, with the headline, “Kentuckians Not Buying Obamacare.” In the on-line version of the Lane Report the very next headline read: “Kentuckians file nearly 11,000 applications for health care coverage on kynect.” Kynect, in case you don’t know, is the Kentucky exchange set up under Obamacare. How does thousands buying coverage become “not buying”?

It seems pretty clear that Republicans’ words have no relationship to reality.

Imagine trying to live in a world where words have no fixed meaning. But we don’t have to imagine. We live in a world where the free market health care exchange is socialism, where “we’ll do it” become “he did it,” and where “not buying” means that thousands are buying. Buying is not buying, capitalism is socialism, up is down, black is white. As Alice said, it gets “curiouser and curiouser.”

But it’s not just amusing. There are serious problems when words lose their meaning. How can you agree on anything when the words you use have no fixed meaning? Precise definition of words is the foundation of the law, of contracts, and of most business relations. And, as many conservatives will tell you, a world where rules and values are subject to varying meanings is a dangerous world indeed. Conservatives often complain about moral relativism, or the idea that moral values have no fixed meaning but are relative to the situation or the person. How can values be absolute when the words that define those values are changeable? They can’t be.

Is it possible that Representative Barr and Senators McConnell and Paul are relativists? Anything is possible when you go through the looking glass into a world where capitalism is socialism, where black is white, and where right is wrong.

The Language of Gridlock

Fight, fight, fight.

I was in Houston a couple of weeks ago, just before the city council election. There was an ad in the paper for a Tea Party candidate who said he was going to “fight” for the people of Houston. Last week Andy Beshear, son of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, announced that he was going to run for Attorney General. In doing so he said he was going to “fight” for the people of Kentucky.

When we elect people who promise to “fight” for us, how can we be surprised when all they do is fight? How can we be surprised by the endless fighting in Washington, over just about everything, when the people we vote for promised to fight? Aren’t they just fulfilling their campaign promise?

Why is it a fight? Why is governing a “fight”? Shouldn’t governing be about rationally addressing issues, and working to solve them? I realize that there are matters of principle, and some principles are so important that they should not be compromised. I also recognize that even politicians should be willing to take a stand on principle, but the reality is that those issues are probably pretty few and far between. Most of the matters of governing are rather mundane, and probably only rarely implicate issues that can be considered matters of principle.

I understand that when politicians say they are going to “fight,” most of the time they are really saying that they are going to work tirelessly. Why can’t they just say that? And why can’t the voters see through this nonsense?

There’s a reason why our politics are stupid. It’s because our politicians talk like their stupid. It’s because political consultants and speech writers and advisers tell them to talk like their stupid. And, unfortunately, it’s because we keep electing people who talk like their stupid. If we want to stop the stupid maybe we should elect people who don’t talk like, and act like, they’re stupid.

The Decline of Coal and Eastern Kentucky

There was a news story in today’s paper discussing the continued decline in coal mining in Eastern Kentucky. [Kentucky Coal Jobs Decline] There are a number of reasons for the decline, and the paper notes most of them, which include a move to natural gas, competition from lower cost coal from other parts of the country, a reduction in the easiest to reach coal seams, and tougher environmental regulations.

This is devastating news to the people of the region, and some politicians, like Governor Steve Beshear and Representative Hal Rogers, are trying to address the issue in a reasonable and responsible manner. [Eastern Kentucky Economic Summit] But unfortunately other politicians are willing to use this economic hardship for political advantage. Far too many use it to whip up resentment of President Obama and what they deceptively call the war on coal. If there is a war on coal, the reality is that natural gas is winning.

I do not understand what politicians think they gain by giving people false hope. Employment in the coal fields will ebb and flow, but the overall decline will continue. The main problem is the low price of natural gas, and the environmental advantages of burning gas over coal. This reality is driving the move to gas, and not environmental laws. This trend is not likely to change, and it is unfortunate that many politicians are unwilling to tell people this. I think that leadership means being honest with people, not manipulating them for political gain.

There was one other issue addressed in the Herald Leader article on declining coal jobs, and that was the declining population of many eastern Kentucky counties. Leslie County Judge-Executive James Sizemore said that with the decline in coal jobs, many people will “have to leave to get work.”

I have no doubt that that is a gut wrenching decision for people, and for an elected leader in the region it must be an emotional blow. But the reality of the world is that, since the dawn of time, people have moved to find work. Most of the people in the United States are the descendants of people who left their homes and home countries seeking work, or better opportunities, in a new land. (The exceptions are the natives who were here first, and those brought here in bondage and against their will.) Westward expansion was driven by people looking for new and better opportunities. The move to the Sun Belt after World War Two was driven by people moving to find work, to find new opportunities, and to find a better life for themselves and their families. It is unfortunate that the people of Eastern Kentucky may have to move to find work, but it is a reality as old as human history.

The Battle of Ideas Placeholder Post

Most polls consistently indicate that the public supports policies and ideas supported by, and promoted by, Democrats. This is true even in conservative states. Despite this preference on the issues, Democrats are only able to eke out political victories. There are a number of reasons for this, which I plan to address in a series of essays under the topic heading of The Battle of Ideas.

This post is mainly to provide a link to an article from Salon.com which describes some of the polling data showing support for liberal policies. Here’s the article:

Even Right Wingers are Liberals  

The Conservative Fear of the Community

Conservatives believe in individual autonomy and fear ceding any individual control to others. This view undergirds their disdain for any type of collective or communal activity. It is why they don’t like unions, why they don’t like the government, and why the disdain communism more than anything.

Unfortunately this hostility toward collective action shows a surprising ignorance of human nature, human history, and human behavior.

Human Nature: Humans are a social animal and cooperative species. We evolved in kin groups and evolved with a learned sense of living with, working with, and cooperating with, other human beings. While humans are not herd animals like bison, they are also not lone animals like wolves or sharks. Humans are primates, and virtually all primate species are social animals that live in extended family groups. Humans evolved with a sense of sharing and cooperation. Human survival depended on the ability of each person to work with the people around them.

Human History: Society is perhaps the greatest human invention. Humans began to dominate the world when they began to live in larger and larger groups. Humans only thrived when we became communal, when we invented civilization.

Human Behavior: Conservative disdain for group behavior seems based on faulty logic. They don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between cooperative behavior and outside control. Humans often work together, and there are various levels of interaction. The lowest level might be cooperation, where two or more people work individually but on a group project. A neighborhood pot-luck dinner might be an example. Everyone brings something to share. The next level might be collaboration. Same neighborhood, but now a Halloween Party where a couple of families arrange for the food and drinks, and invite everyone else. At the far extreme would be communism, where all property is owned communally. An example would be a Kibbutz in Israel.

There are undoubtedly many levels between cooperative behavior and communism, but most conservatives conflate it all. Any group effort, of any kind, is, in their mind, the first step toward the commune.

A Deep Fear of Human Nature

Yesterday Kentucky Senator Rand Paul gave a speech at Liberty University where he warned against eugenics, or the use of scientific biological engineering to selectively breed people. He said that the combination of abortion and advanced medical technology could allow people to selecting “out the imperfect among us.” Paul Warns About Eugenics

It was typical Paul hyperbole, and amusing since it turns out that he lifted much of the speech from the Wikipedia page for the movie Gattaca, which he referenced in his speech. Paul Lifts Anti-Abortion Speech

Paul made the remarks while campaigning for Virginia Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli. Most of the commentary about the speech accused Paul and Cuccinelli of being anti-science. They noted that Cuccinnelli sued the University of Virginia under state anti-fraud laws to stop research on climate change. There is no doubt that Cucinnelli is anti-science, as is most of the modern Republican Party, and it is more than a little likely that Senator Paul is also anti-science.

But the real issue, in my view, is what this says about Paul’s view (and by implication Cucinelli’s view and the beliefs of much of the conservative movement) about human nature. Paul doesn’t just fear science. What he fears is that people will misuse science. In fact, Paul seems convinced that, given a tool, scientists will misuse it. This shows a deep disdain for human nature. This deep skepticism of human nature is a common current running through much of, if not most of, conservative thought. They are tough on crime because they believe that most people, if given the opportunity and believe that they can get away with it, will commit crimes. They fear government because government is run by people. They fear government most when it is run by liberals, whom they are predisposed to believe are inherently evil.

Most conservative policies are defined by this belief that people are inherently bad. And the one thing that seems to unite all segments of conservatism, from libertarians to free-marketeers to Christian conservatives to the members of the Tea Party, is a deep and abiding fear of humanity.

The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Laws

One of the first cases heard by the Supreme Court this session was McCutcheon v. FEC, a case which deals with campaign finance laws. The main question is whether campaign contributions are a form of speech, and whether it is legitimate for Congress (through the Federal Election Commission) to place limits on the total amount that an individual can contribute in any election year.

This case raises two important issues regarding First Amendment rights, and by implication all constitutional rights.

First, all rights, even constitutional rights, are not absolute. There are many, many limits on our right to free speech. This is true, even though the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There are literally dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of laws passed by the U.S. Congress, and by the states, that restrict or limit the ability to speak freely. Copyright laws limit speech, as do defamation laws (slander and libel), obscenity laws and broadcast decency laws. Localities have what are called “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech. These allow a city to prevent a person from driving around in a sound truck late at night blasting their message. A city also has the ability to limit and control parades, and limit demonstrations to certain locations. All of these laws, and many others, limit the right to speak freely, and seem to directly in the face of the explicit language of the First Amendment.

The reason that these laws can exist – as most lawyers know but most political commentators ignore – is that all rights, even enshrined constitutional rights, are subject to reasonable limitations. Otherwise there would be chaos. Imagine if your neighbor decided that he wanted to let his son’s band practice at full volume on the front lawn every night. There has to be some limit on rights, and the question is balance. For restrictions on First Amendment rights the balance is if there a reasonable opportunity to express an opinion and whether the restrictions are content neutral and not unreasonably burdensome?

This same balance should apply in deciding whether campaign contributions can be limited. The question in this case is whether there is a legitimate social interest in the restrictions on money in politics, and whether the ‘speaker’ (in this case the donor) has a reasonable opportunity to express an opinion and if the particular restriction is burdensome.

I honestly don’t know the answer to that, which brings me to my second point:

Just because something is allowed as a “constitutional” right doesn’t mean that it is automatically good. Even important rights can produce negative consequences. We know this from the First Amendment. We know that some speech, or some expression, can be harmful. That’s why we allow limits on obscenity.

The free-for-all of American culture is the byproduct of the First Amendment. And there is no doubt that vast segments of our culture are a squalid wasteland. The right may be valid, but that doesn’t mean that every by-product is inherently good. And so, in this case, the First Amendment may protect the right to give freely to political candidates, but that doesn’t mean the end result will be good, just that it is constitutional.
Finally let me note that this idea applies to all rights. All rights, even constitutional rights, are subject to reasonable restrictions. And just because something is allowed by the Constitution doesn’t mean that it is socially beneficial.

The Political Perpetual Motion Machine

For months and months Republicans have complained that the uncertainty of Obamacare was hurting the economy. And now, just a few days before the health care exchanges go live and the system starts to operate, what do they do? They vote to delay the implementation for a year. In other words they vote for more uncertainty.

Do they even listen to themselves? Do they have any sense of how completely inconsistent their actions and their words are? I doubt it.

But then again, maybe they do. Maybe they know that they are voting for more uncertainty, and they are doing it so that they can continue to decry the uncertainty. Never mind that they created it. Basically they have created the political perpetual motion machine.