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 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.

Partisan Gridlock, Changing the System, and Third Parties

The Herald Leader published my Op/Ed today on ways to change the election system to help end partisan gridlock in Washington.

Third Parties Could Break Partisan Gridlock

This essay is based, in part on a much longer analysis, which is on my campaign web site:

Proposal to End Partisan Gridlock

And I wrote a number of essays on my blog talking about these issues:

An Antidote to Partisan Poison: This discusses a number of ideas for fixing the system, not just changing elections.

The Destructive Duality: This discusses how placing every issue in the Liberal versus Conservative paradigm is stupid, and makes us stupid.

The Roots of Poisonous Partisanship: This was an early essay that tried to get to the bottom of the problem.

The Roots of Conservative Rage: One of the main problems is the anger and intransigence of the modern conservative movement. This essay tries to explain why they are so mad.

The Barr Report, Sept 20

The Through the Looking Glass with Andy Edition, in which up become down, black become white, and right becomes wrong.

The Herald Leader published an Opinion piece today by Representative Barr explaining why he was voting for a budget bill that would defund “Obamacare,” a bill that would fail in the Senate, and would likely lead to a government shutdown.

The title of the article was “Obama willing to shut down government over bad health law.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that the Republicans in Congress have hatched this plan to threaten to shut down the government in an attempt to force the Democrats in the Senate, and President Obama, to defund “Obamacare” as the Affordable Care Act is now called. Republicans have been threatening for months to shut down the government, but now Barr suggests that it’s Obama who’s trying to shut down the government. Does he think we’re stupid?

It reminds me of those strange news stories you read of a criminal suing the victim. I saw one a few days ago where a rapist was going to sue his victim because he contracted AIDS during the rape.

Rep. Barr says that the Republicans in Congress reflect the will of the people. But remember, the Affordable Care Act passed both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by the President. The Congress that enacted the law was elected by the people. President Obama was elected by the people, and we re-elected after a campaign where the Affordable Care Act was a major issue. If the public disapproved of Obama’s signature policy initiative they could have turned him out of office. But they didn’t.

I recognize that the public is deeply divided over the issue. But I also understand that it was properly enacted. What Republicans are trying to do now is unprecedented. Having failed to stop a piece of legislation they are now trying to stop its implementation by using the power of the purse to deny funding. That isn’t democracy, that’s an end run around democracy. But we now live in a world where words have lost all meaning. We now live in a world where a Republican votes to shut down the government, then claims that it’s his opponent that’s doing it. A strange world indeed.

The Strange Logic of Food Stamp Reform

House Republicans are considered a bill today to “reform” the food stamp program (called SNAP), which would cut nearly $40 billion from the program by tightening eligibility requirements. According to some reports this would remove roughly 3.8 million people from the program.

It’s a shameful move, and Democrats and many advocates for the poor are trying to shame Republicans for doing this.

The problem is that Republicans aren’t ashamed of this move. They honestly don’t think that they’re hurting the poor, but rather are helping them by freeing them from dependency on government programs. It may sound cracked, but it’s true. In his press release explaining his vote to cut food stamps, Representative Andy Barr said “This legislation is the most compassionate policy because it encourages people who are capable of work to move from dependency to self-sufficiency.”

This is from a Heritage Foundation editorial on welfare reform, but the same logic holds true for any government assistance program:
“Conservatives have as their end goal as few people dependent on the government as possible. In other words, we want people to be self-sufficient, thriving members of society. … Encouraging independence may not be the liberals’ goal, but it is the goal of conservatives. And that is the only goal befitting of human dignity.” Katherine Rosario, Communications Deputy, The Heritage Foundation, op/ed “What Needs to Happen Next with Welfare Reform,” January 23, 2013.

That sounds laudable, but it’s nonsense. If government assistance reduced self-sufficiency and created dependence then countries with welfare programs would have struggling economies, because the people would rather loaf and collect welfare. And conversely, countries without welfare programs would have strong and vibrant economies, because the people would be free of misguided government beneficence, and possibly because the very real threat of poverty and starvation would force people to strive, work hard, and succeed.

But how does that work in the real world? Well, most of the most successful and dynamic economies in the world are in countries with welfare programs. These are the “first-world” countries of Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Oh, and let’s not forget China, the country with the highest economic growth rate over the last decade or so. China is ostensibly a communist country (though it is more of a capitalistic dictatorship now), with a minimal level of government support for all people. So some level of government assistance doesn’t disincentivize people from working.

And what of the corollary? If welfare creates dependency does lack of support incentivize people to strive? If it does, this doesn’t show up in the economic data. The countries with the most dismal economies are also the countries without any social safety net. So, for some reason, lack of government assistance doesn’t incentivize people to work.

It is a highly complex issue, and there are many factors that determine the relative wealth of a country, and vibrancy of its economy. But there is little support for the conservative idea that government assistance creates dependency.

The Importance of Government Funding of Scientific Research

There were two excellent essays in today’s Herald Leader describing the devastating impact of cuts to government funded scientific research as a result of the budget sequestration deal. One essay was by Sharon P. Turner the Dean of Oral Health at UK College of Dentistry, and the other was by George Ward, the executive director of the Coldstream research campus.

Federal Grants Crucial in Funding Innovation

Cutbacks Hurt Oral Health Care

Many people (read conservative Republicans) act as if government funding for scientific research pays for research into strange and esoteric things. Critics of government funding for research love to point to weird examples like mating habits of insects, but the reality is that most government funded research is very practical, and often directly tied to real world issues.

Dean Turner points research into oral health infections of pregnant women, and notes that these infections often relate to low birth weight babies. Curing these diseases results in substantial savings in neonatal costs. George Ward notes that government funded research at Coldstream has created dozens of businesses, which generate millions of dollars for the local economy.

Scientific research is the foundation of the industries, and business, of the future. Cutting funding to such research may save a few dollars today, but at the expense of the economic develop, and tax revenue, of tomorrow.

More Problems for Eastern Kentucky Coal

Coal producers in Eastern Kentucky just can catch a break, which has devastating effects on coal miners in the region. A recent news report in the newspaper indicates that, due to a worldwide glut of coal, the price has decreased dramatically. The spot price of Newcastle coal, and international benchmark, has decreased from $120 per metric ton, to roughly $80.

U.S. Coal Companies Lower Export Growth

This means that it is no longer cost effective to mine coal in certain regions, like Eastern Kentucky, where costs are high. And this means that coal companies are again laying off miners.

The impact of changing market forces on Eastern Kentucky coal is nothing short of devastating. It is unfortunate that some people – some politicians – would rather play politics with the issue rather than help the region deal with changing market forces.

The Barr Report, September 8, 2013

In his weekly e-mail to constituents, Representative Barr addressed a number of topics, but the most current and relevant was the situation in Syria.

Rep. Barr said that “I will continue to be guided by my belief that any use of military force must materially advance the national security of the United States, have a clear strategic objective, and have a clear strategy for victory. I will not support military intervention in Syria unless and until these criteria are met.”

The one point that I would take issue with is the idea that we should only use military force if and when it “materially advances the national security” of the nation. (I agree that there needs to be a clear objective and a strategy for success, though I’m not sure how to define “victory” in this sort of situation.)

The United States has long use the military to protect and advance the national interest, not just the nation’s security. Our Navy patrols the world’s oceans not just to keep peace and to keep the nation safe, but also to keep the world’s shipping routes safe and open, because that is in the national interest. We have defense treaties with far-flung nations, like South Korea, not because an attack in South Korea would directly threaten our national security but because an attack on South Korea would threaten a key regional ally and an important international economic power. Protecting South Korea doesn’t necessarily protect the United States, but it certainly protects the national interest. We have pledged our support for Israel because we have long believed that it is in the national interest to have a democratic ally in the Middle East, not because an attack on Israel would be a direct, or even tangential, threat to our national security.

I do not know, and am not suggesting, that Rep. Barr is saying that our foreign policy should be guided narrowly by concerns about national security. But there are many in the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that clearly feel that way. That, in my view, is the road to isolationism, and that is a road we went down before, with tragic results.

The reality is that the modern world is far too interconnected for any nation to be isolationist. If we want to be connected to the rest of the world economically, we also need to be connected diplomatically. That means we are part of the larger world, whether some people like it or not. And because ours is the largest economy on earth we are a major player, whether some people like it or not.

That does not mean that we should be cavalier in our use of our military, or in the use of military power. We should be willing to use military power, but only after careful and thorough consideration of tactics used and desired objectives.

Budget Cuts and the Errosion of Basic Science

Here’s a story on today’s CNN Money web site describing layoffs among research scientists due to the budget cuts mandated by sequestration.

Budget Cuts Laying Off Scientists

Some people say that this money is just government largess. (Those people would be conservative politicians.) But the reality is that government funded research has produced numerous valuable discoveries that have led directly to the creation of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs. Government support for scientific research is the seed corn of future growth, it is an investment in the future. As I have said repeatedly, science is the foundation of the modern economy. If we degrade science we will degrade the economy.

No Solyndra, No Sam Colt

Republicans in Congress were outraged when one of the companies that received a government guaranteed loan under Obama’s stimulus failed. The company in question was called Solyndra, and it made a special tubular solar “panel” that was designed to work in conjunction with white roofs, which are replacing dark roofs on commercial buildings across the nation. White roofs are highly reflective, and the Solyndra “panel” was supposed to be able to absorb both direct and reflected light. Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, as part of a program under the Obama stimulus (called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) designed to promote “green technology.”

The failure of Solyndra outraged Conservatives on two levels: first because government money was used to support “green” technology, and second because it was part of the hated Obama stimulus. Republicans tried to use it as an example of the failure of both of these programs. In response they proposed a bill to prevent government funding of similar programs, which they called the “No More Solyndras Act.”

Conservatives act as if government funding of new technology is some liberal scheme, that Obama is somehow an outlier, and that these are somehow new programs. But the reality is that the government has long funded business, particularly in cutting edge technology that could not get financing elsewhere. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was fascinated by the idea of interchangeable parts, particularly for weapons. He was certainly not alone. Interchangeable parts for a musket or cannon would mean that the weapon could be quickly and easily repaired on the battlefield. At the time all weapons were hand made, and if a part broke a replacement part needed to be hand made by a gun smith. It was an expensive and time consuming process, and militaries around the world were trying to develop weapons with interchangeable parts. If the triggers and firing mechanisms were interchangeable the weapon could be quickly, and cheaply, repaired.

In 1799 the inventor Eli Whitney gave a presentation of his precisely crafted gun components to Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was impressed. He believed that Whitney had perfected the interchangeable part and pushed a bill through Congress to purchase guns from Whitney. But Whitney never succeeded in producing a large quantity of guns with truly interchangeable parts. Despite this failure, the government continued to fund weapons manufacturers who were trying to produce weapons with interchangeable parts. By the 1820’s a gun maker named John H. Hall was producing weapons at the government owned Harpers Ferry Armory that were passably interchangeable. But the real success came with Sam Colt, who mass produced a repeating revolver with precise and fully interchangeable parts. Colt struggled for years to sell his weapon. He sold a few to the Texas Rangers in the 1840’s but was unable to convince the U.S. Army to buy his weapons. In a fortuitous stroke of luck, as tensions with Mexico increased, a Texas Ranger was in Washington talking about problems with Mexico, when he happened to mention that the best weapon the Rangers had when fighting Indians was a Colt Revolver. Based on this praise the army placed an order for one thousand Colt pistols. The era of machine made weapons with fully interchangeable parts began.

I suspect that if the current crop of conservative Republicans had been in Congress in the early 1800’s they would have cut off government funding after the Whitney’s failure, and would have attempted to prevent such funding in the future. Would they have proposed a bill titled “No More Eli Whitneys?” I suspect so. But without Whitney there may have been no Hall, and no Sam Colt.