Category: Conservatives

Ma Bell and the Modern Market

Conservatives like to complain that government regulation is stifling the economy. This implies that, once upon a time, the market was free of government interference. And likely they would point to the 1950’s as the glory days of the American free enterprise system. I suspect that if you were to ask most Republicans, they would likely say that the American economy was more free and open in the 1950’s than today. The reality, however, is quite different.

Remember “Ma Bell?” Ma Bell was the nickname for AT &T, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Ma Bell was the only phone company in the country until the early 1980’s. Ma Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly. There was no competition, there was no free market, in telecommunications in this country in the 1950’s.

Remember the Civil Aeronautics Board? Up until deregulation in 1978, the CAB controlled rates and routes in the American airline industry. There was no competition, there was no free market, in the airline industry in this country in the 1950’s.

Remember the Hays Code? Most people don’t know the name, but in the 1920’s the Motion Picture Association of America created a production code that prohibited the depiction of certain subjects in film. This was known as the Hays Code, and it was censorship, plain and simple. The MPAA kept a tight rein on films until the late 1960’s, when things began to loosen up. There was a tightly regulated market in films in this country in the 1950’s. In fact there was widespread censorship in this country until the late 1950’s, when judicial decisions allowed the importation and domestic printing of books like Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Most of the censorship occurred at the state and local level, but the federal government enforced these laws at the Post Office by refusing to mail books deemed obscene. These laws were largely overturned in the 1973 Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Before the deregulation movement of the late 1970’s, most of the American transportation industries were heavily regulated. Railroads were deregulated in 1976 (the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976), trucking was deregulated in 1980 (the Motor Carriers Act of 1980), and bus lines were deregulated in 1982 (the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982). There was no competition, there was no free market, in the transportation industry in this country in the 1950’s.

Banks and finance were heavily regulated after the market collapse of 1929, but things began to change in the 1980’s. In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, which removed many restrictions on the way Savings and Loans operated. Many went on a tear offering new loans, and the system collapsed in the late 1980’s, leading to the so-called “Savings and Loan Crisis.” Banks were largely deregulated in 1999, with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. There was no competition, there was no free market, in the banking industry in this country in the 1950’s.

(I have neither the time or expertise to discuss the widespread use of tariffs and import laws to protect domestic industry, but suffice it to say, the American economy didn’t have to deal with much worldwide competition in the 1950’s.)

The U.S. economy of the 1950’s was also operating in the shadow of World War Two, when the government, through various war time production agencies, essentially controlled the economy. War production rebuilt many industries that had languished during the Depression, and after the war many of these facilities that had been built at taxpayer expense, were given, or sold at very low cost, to private industry. War production nearly doubled the size and output of the American aluminum industry, and after the war these facilities were sold for pennies on the dollar.

So the so-called free market of the 1950’s was anything but, and exists not in reality but only in the febrile imaginations of conservatives.

There is no doubt that there is still a great deal of regulation in the American marketplace, but it is regulation of a different sort. Modern regulation does not regulate the operation of the market, but regulates the behavior of businesses. The most hated forms of regulation are environmental regulations, product safety regulations, and work place safety regulations. These are certainly a burden to business, but it not manipulation of the market like the government involvement of the 1950’s. This sort of regulation, however, is probably much more of an irritant to business owners because it seems to presuppose that they need adult supervision to run their businesses honestly and properly. It is also much more niggling and picayune. And so it is likely much more despised than earlier forms of regulation.

But just because it is more irritating doesn’t necessarily mean that it is more burdensome than the higher level of market control and regulation that existed in the 1950’s.

Reinhart & Rogoff Part 2

Here are two more articles on the problems and fall-out from the Reinhart Rogoff paper.

From Salon: How to Prevent Future Reinhart – Rogoff Meltdowns

From Jared Bernstein: The Reinhart/Rogoff Mistake

By the way, for future reference, Jared Bernstein’s blog is a wealth of good economic information. It is at http://jaredbernsteinblog.com

Also for future reference, the Political Economy Research Institute is also a good source of economic information.  http://www.peri.umass.edu/

Same Sex Marriage and The Ninth Amendment

The Supreme Court will consider two cases relating to gay marriage this week.[1] The exact issues are still up in the air, so it is possible that the court will not directly address the question of whether or not gays have a constitutional right to marry. It would be nice to think that all of the justices will approach the case with an open mind, but apparently some are already pre-disposed. I’m talking about Justice Antonin Scalia who pretty clearly broadcasted his views this past fall at a book reading at the Conservative American Enterprise Institute. In response to a question about hard and easy cases he said: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” [2]

So, apparently for Scalia, individual rights protected under the Constitution are only those that were in existence in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. But doesn’t the Ninth Amendment seem to imply otherwise?

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[3]

 

This seems to imply that certain rights, for example the right to marry, belong to the people to sort out as they please. But in Scalia’s view the “rights retained by the people” referenced in the Ninth Amendment are only those in existence when the Bill of Rights were ratified.

While the language of the Ninth Amendment seems to suggest otherwise, it is certainly not clear, so perhaps Scalia is right. It would have been wonderful had the drafters of the Ninth Amendment said that “other rights, meaning those currently known and developed in the future, … are retained by the people.” But alas they were not that clear.

But is there anything in the history of the drafting of the Ninth Amendment that can help us understand what the draftsman meant? Did they specifically limit “rights” to current rights, or did they consider that other rights might be developed by the people? Perhaps as they were debating the language of the Amendment they specifically said that the purpose of this amendment is to preserve every right, now known or potentially contemplated in the future. Let’s look at the development of the Ninth Amendment to see if there’s anything that can give us any insight into what rights the drafters were talking about.

During the Ratification debates in the states, a number of states ratified on the condition that a Bill of Rights be adopted. Some of those states submitted proposed amendments, and all were based on the idea that the powers of the national government should be limited.

The Virginia Ratifying convention included a detailed list of a proposed bill of rights, as well as a number of broad statements of principle, which addressed the apportionment of individual rights and government powers. The statements of principle clearly set out the idea that people should have braod rights, and the government power to inhibit those rights should be limited:

1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

 

When James Madison drafted a proposed Bill of Rights, he included a provision that explained that the listing of rights was not meant to otherwise limit the rights of the people.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.[4]

 

When Madison presented his proposed Amendments, he gave a lengthy speech to explain his underlying reasoning. He also described the purpose behind most of the provisions, including the nascent Ninth Amendment:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the [language set out above.][5]

 

Through the political give and take in Congress we ended up with the Ninth Amendment we have today. But the purpose of the Ninth Amendment was, clearly and explicitly, to limit the power of government. It achieves this purpose by recognizing that the people have certain rights. It does not specifically delineate those rights, but notes that they are more than the specific rights set out in the Bill of Rights.

Scalia has said that he agrees that one purpose of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is to limit the power of government. During oral argument for the Affordable Care Act, when discussing whether the individual mandate was allowable under the Necessary and Proper clause, Scalia said “The Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers, … [the idea was] that it’s supposed to be a government of limited power.”[6] But if we limit the rights of individuals to those rights in existence in 1791, as Scalia suggests, then aren’t individual rights limited? And if individual rights are limited, doesn’t that mean that the power of government to impose itself onto human affairs, can expand?

The thing is society changes over time.  It has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future. And as society changes the condition of the humans that make up society also change. As the social environment changes, the way people behave and interact with each other also changes. People have the ability to do new and different things, because new and different things have become available. And as people acquire the ability to do new and different things, doesn’t that mean that people’s rights change as well?

But if society changes, behaviors change, and options and opportunities change, then rights must also develop or change over time. If rights are frozen, as Scalia suggests, then doesn’t the power of government expand? If you prevent the expansion of individual rights as society changes, don’t you allow for the expansion of government power into new areas of human behavior not considered by the drafters of the Bill of Rights? That seems to be the opposite of what Scalia has said he believes, and also the opposite of what appears to be the purpose behind the Ninth Amendment. If you want is to limit the power of Government in a changing society, isn’t the best way to do that by allowing the expansion of individual rights?

[1] Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-144; and U.S. v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-307. 

[2]  This was at a reading of his new book at the American Enterprise Institute on October 5, 2012. See, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526578/scalia-abortion-death-penalty-easy-cases/ (Emphasis added.) Note: Scalia does not allow taping of his events, so this record is from the CBS News web site. The site does not indicate the specific wording of the question he was asked.

[3] U.S. Const. Amend IX.

[4] Available on line at: http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

[5] Id.

[6] National Federation of Independent Businesses, et al. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ , 132 S.Ct. 603, 181 L.Ed.2d 420 (2012). The audio transcript of the oral argument, where we can hear Scalia make this s available on the Supreme Court Web Site at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-393

 

An Antidote to Partisan Poison

In two previous posts I described the growing bitterness between the parties and the impact that it has had on our politics.

So, you ask, what is your solution?

Just as there are many causes to poisonous partisanship, there are many possible solutions.

First, I think the most important thing to do is get past the idea that the fight is between good and bad, and that the other side is evil. This is the product of a simplistic, if not destructive, duality, and we need to get past it. One way to do this is to understand that there are not simply two solutions to every problem—a Democratic solution and a Republican solution, a right solution and a wrong solution—and realize that there are many different policy options, and the two parties are merely presenting two possible choices among many. As a result, one is not right and the other wrong. One may advance certain goals more than others, but that is not the same thing as right or wrong.

I think that ultimately the best way to do this is to create more parties, so that there are numerous voices in the public debate presenting numerous policy alternatives. That way people will know and understand that there are not simply two choices and that one is not necessarily good and the other necessarily bad. But this means more that creating an “independent” party or a “No-Labels” party. It means allowing parties with real policies to compete in elections. (I will describe what those parties might be below).

But this will take significant structural changes, which I will also describe below.

But in the meantime here are a couple of relatively easy fixes.

 

If the news media only did their job …..

One easy solution is for the media to stop presenting every issue as if it were a simple battle of Democratic policy versus Republican policy. I realize that this will require that the media, how shall I say this nicely, get their collective heads out of their collective asses. Do your job. Do some background research. Ask real questions. Stop either fawning or attacking. Want to know how it’s done? Watch the BBC, they seem to be able to do it.

Here’s an example. When you present an outlier against the consensus view, show it in a way that reflects this reality. Don’t, for example, have a global climate change denying politician on a show and pair him with an equally ill-informed climate change believing politician. It makes it look like the real battle is a simple partisan battle. Certainly have the denier on, but pair him with reputable scientist and let them show believable data.

Perhaps if the media made some effort to present issues with some level of complexity, and then said that there are many possible solutions, maybe that lesson would sink in. Maybe it could drain some of the rancor from the debate. They don’t have to become NOVA or PBS News Hour. They don’t have to present hour long analysis of issues, but they could give a serious topic more than 20 or 30 seconds. I realize that there are information sources out there that do go into great detail – numerous magazines and books – but even though their audience is greatly diminished, much of our national public policy debate is still influenced by the major network news programs. And with just a little effort they could impart some reason into the debate. 

The other changes are much more difficult, and probably require deep structural changes in our political and electoral system.

 

Term Limits

One possible solution is to institute term limits. The newly elected Representative in my Congressional District, Representative Andy Barr, has introduced legislation for a Constitutional Amendment limiting Senators and Congressmen to 12 years of service. I don’t support a strict term limit, and have proposed a modified type of term limit, where elected officials could serve no more than a specified number of consecutive terms, and then would have to sit out (or run for a different office) before running again. I posted an in January essay discussing this idea.

Either option would eliminate the incumbent advantage and increase the turn-over in Congress, which might increase the number of voices in politics. There is some possibility that with more competitive races around the country there would be less likelihood that big money would flood certain “key” races. This might help make campaigns a battle over real ideas and not simply a battle of competing sound-bites and nasty attack ads. But maybe not.

 

Partisan Gerrymandering

Eliminate partisan gerrymandering. The current Congress is the most rigidly partisan in history. This is due, in large measure, to the way politicians have effectively gerrymandered districts to ensure that both parties have reliable districts.  If districts were less ideologically uniform, and more politically diverse, politicians would have to behave more moderately in order to appeal to a broader electorate. They might also seriously debate real issues and rely less on poll tested talking points.

But this will only happen if we have changes at the state level. It’s interesting to look at the map of the presidential election, where Obama won handily, then look at the map of Congressional Districts, where Republicans maintain an advantage, and then look at the partisan map of some of the states that voted for Obama, like Ohio and Virginia. In both states Republicans dominate the state houses, even though both states voted for Obama by a fair margin.

The reason for this is that state level electoral districts do not necessarily need to be balanced by population. There was a case in the 1960’s called Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), where the Supreme Court said that all electoral districts needed to have roughly the same population. There was a near revolution in rural America, and subsequent Supreme Court cases have backed away a bit, and said that the states can vary this slightly to accommodate historic norms, meaning county lines. This means that in many states there are rural districts that have fewer people than urban districts, which means that in many states urban districts (which tend to vote for Democrats) are under-represented. This is why the state representative map of Ohio is almost totally red, with a few blue dots in the cities, while the state still votes for a Democratic president. So the first step in solving the gerrymandering mess is to strictly enforce the Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. Sims, which set out the principle of one man, one vote. This will increase the representation of urban areas and break the rural (read conservative) lock on many state legislatures. And then from there the apportionment of congressional districts will be somewhat fairer.  

The other solution, which I prefer, is to take districting out of the hands of politicians. A number of states have independent commissions that draw the state’s political districts. Iowa is the most famous, but recently California established a non-partisan commission. Perhaps it is time for a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate partisan districting, at both the state and the national levels.   

 

Increase the number of Representatives.

We currently have 435 Representatives. This number was set by Statute in 1913, when the U.S. population was about 95 million. At that rate there was one Representative for every 220,000 people. Now there is one Representative for about every 700,000 people. But the problem is that a number of very small states (Wyoming, Vermont and North Dakota) have populations much smaller than this, which means that the bigger states, like California, Texas and New York, end up having congressional districts with nearly one million residents.

The founders wanted the number of representatives to grow as the nation grew, and we should return to this idea. James Madison proposed that we have one representative for every 50,000 voters. That might have worked in colonial American, but with over 310,000,000 citizens, it would mean we would have a House or Representatives with over 6200 members. That would be crazy, but if we set the number at, for example, 300,000 we would have a congress with 1000 members. This might seem like a lot, but Great Britain, with a population less than a third of ours has over 600 members of the House of Commons. Or if it were 500,000 we would have a House with 620 or so members.

Increasing the number of representatives would do a number of things that should help ease the partisan divide. First, it would make the redistricting of states easier, and might create more balanced congressional districts. Clearly some very conservative districts would have very conservative representatives, and liberal districts liberal representatives. But I think it would increase the number of moderate office holders.

Second, this would mean that each Congressman would be from smaller districts, and would mean that it would be easier for members to actually meet their constituents. It would make it easier to run for Congress because each district would be small enough for a candidate to win through hard work (knocking on doors, networking, etc.), and not have to rely on television commercials, which cost lots of money and make fundraising a priority.   

Third, this would increase the number of voices in politics. That would increase the number of views on a problem. This might also make it easier for third party candidates to win an election. But this is not the main or best way to support third parties, which brings me to:

 

Third Parties

I think one of the best ways to get past the nasty head-to-head partisanship is through the presence of viable alternative parties. This might mean more than a single third party, but rather a number of smaller parties, as noted above.

I suspect that this might result in six smaller parties. Working from left to right, I would suspect that there would be a Peace/Green Party, a moderate liberal “social democrat” party, a Labor Party, then a moderate (main street Republican) party, a Christian Conservative Party, and a Libertarian Party. I suspect that the moderate liberal and moderate Republican parties would be the two larger parties, with the others commanding 10% or so of the electorate. This would mean each group would be able to present its views, without the need to dilute those views as is the case now in a large coalition party. This would also prevent the kinds of internal battles which from time to time bedevil the main parties (as is happening in the Republican Party).

I believe that if rational voices presented a wider variety of solutions to our public policy problems then every problem would not be presented as a simple either/or, Democrat/Republican, right/wrong choice. This would drain much of the rancor out of our political debate because the debate would be over problems and solutions, not right and wrong, good and bad.

But getting third parties would be very difficult. In order to gain legitimacy, a party must win public office. Elected officials have a platform and responsibilities, and their success helps support the ideas and values of the party.

But our current system is designed around two parties. One of the main contributors is the nature of our elections. Our elections are often referred to as first across the wire elections, where the candidate with the most votes wins. This has created a system where two parties each try to get 50% plus one vote. Smaller parties can’t garner this number of votes, and so don’t succeed.

Increasing the number of representatives, as suggested above, would increase the likelihood of more parties, but the reality is that with head to head and first across the wire elections it is difficult, if not impossible, for a minor party candidates to win an election.

The best way to ensure small parties is to have slate elections, where the public choses a number of candidates from a list, as opposed to one from a head to head choice of two. Most of us already do this in local elections, and most of the world does it in parliamentary elections, so it is not some untested new-fangled idea. In the early years of our nation, under the Articles of Confederation, most states elected their representatives to the Confederation on a slate ticket.

In a slate election there might be six or eight candidates, and the voter can chose any three. This would mean that a candidate with, for example, only 20% of the vote, might gain a seat, and with that seat the party would gain a voice in the debate, and those ideas would gain legitimacy.

This system would not work with the current number of Representatives because some states have only one Representative. But if we increased the number, as suggested above, even the smallest states would have at least two Representatives.

Let me use Kentucky as an example of how this would work. With one representative for every 500,000 citizens, Kentucky would have nine representatives. The state could then be broken up into three large electoral districts, and citizens would chose three representatives from a list of candidates. The larger parties would probably win one each, but it is possible that one of the third party candidates could get elected. In a district centered around Louisville, the third party candidate might be from a Labor party, while in a rural eastern Kentucky district the third party candidate might be from a Christian Conservative party.

  

I have only addressed these ideas in a cursory manner, and each deserves a great deal more analysis. All have advantages, as well as drawbacks, and all of that needs to be addressed. I will try to do this I some detail in the future.

Reductio ad absurdum

It means reduced to the absurd. It is a form of argument that reduces your opponent’s argument to an absurdity, in an attempt to show that the argument itself is absurd. But it only works if you point out the logical fallacies in the argument. It doesn’t work when you simply extend your opponents comments to an illogical extreme, and then argue against this illogical extreme. That argument simply makes you look dumb.

I was fascinated by Senator Marco Rubio’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union address a few weeks ago. It was chock-a-block full of conservative talking points, and I would like to address one here: his contention that President Obama does not believe in the free market. Rubio said:

“Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. But President Obama?  He believes it’s the cause of our problems.  That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough.”

That is an interesting comment and a standard Republican talking point, but I don’t think I have ever heard Obama say that the free enterprise system was the cause of the economic collapse. Did I simply miss it?

I think what Sen. Rubio is suggesting is that Obama, like most economists, believe that the financial crisis that began with the collapse of the housing market, was caused, in part, by derivatives and collateralized debt obligations based on mortgage backed securities. This is the wild-west side of our capitalist system. But to suggest that criticism of out of control bankers is the same as believing that the free enterprise system is the cause of our economic woes is simply a bizarre form of reductio ad absurdum.

Rubio was not the first to suggest that Obama does not like the free market system. Republicans have been calling him a socialist for years, at least since he first started running for President, if not before. It is obviously absurd, but what does it say about Republicans that they have to reduce Obama’s arguments to an absurd abstraction, and then argue against that?

I think this raises two important questions:

1. Where does this idea come from?

2. What does it mean for our political system that so many Republicans would rather fight against a bizarre make believe version of Obama rather than the real thing?

1. Where does this idea come from?

As I mentioned, Obama did criticize the more out of control aspects of capitalism regarding the world-wide financial collapse in 2007-08. But then again, so did most economists. About the only people who don’t blame the bankers for pushing crappy mortgages, and then packaging them into derivatives and CDO’s, are Republican politicians. They have an alternate theory. In their view it was Barney Frank, and the Federal Home Loan program that created the housing bubble and led to the collapse. Rubio even alluded to this in his speech.

Conservatives also suggest that Obama’s approach to health care amounts to socialism. The only problem with this argument is that the individual mandate they complain about began as a conservative idea (to eliminate economic free riders) and was the centerpiece of Mitt Romney’s supposedly market based plan for health care reform in Massachusetts. So it’s not really health care either.

What about other regulations? Republicans complain that Obama’s regulations are stifling the economy, but is this a sign of socialism? First, the reality is that the modern American economy is far less regulated, on a substantive level then it was in the past. Modern regulation primarily deals with the effects of certain business behavior, and does not deal with the actual operation of the market. Environmental laws deal with the pollution generated from industrial production, work place safety laws deal with the treatment of workers, and new banking regulations attempt to reign in certain economic behavior. None of these directly regulate the operation of the free market. But, once upon a time, this nation had a great deal of direct government involvement in the market. One example is the Civil Aeronautics Board, which controlled the airline industry. This board apportioned routes among carriers, and set fares. In other words, a government board (with representatives of the airlines sitting on the board) controlled the industry. This was eliminated by deregulation in 1978. So, from the beginning of the industry, until 1978, the American airline industry was directly controlled by the government. The government similarly controlled rail and freight shipping, and both were deregulated in the late 70’s (or early 80’s). Obama has proposed nothing like this.

From the 1930’s through the early 1950’s, there were other government boards that controlled major industries, like steel. These began as a product of the depression, and continued during the war to control war production. They were phased out at the end of the war, but elements remained in some industries until the 1950’s. Similarly, the telephone industry was a government regulated monopoly until it was broken up in 1984. Banks were also heavily regulated, starting with massive restructuring of the American Banking system in the early years of the Great Depression. These regulations were eased, starting with deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry in 1986. The newly unregulated S&L’s went on a lending spree, and collapsed a few years later, requiring government bailouts. And then the banks were deregulated in the late 1990’s, and we know what happened then. But the important point is that Obama has not suggested re-imposing any of these kinds of regulations. And even though many call for it, Obama has not called for the re-authorization of the Glass-Stengall act which kept commercial banking separate from investment banking.

It is also worth noting that in the early 1970’s, in an attempt to deal with inflation, both Presidents Nixon and Ford, instituted a variety of price controls over key products and commodities. This is a form of direct economic control found primarily in real socialist countries. It didn’t work, and no one tries in any more. The main point is that Obama is not suggesting anything of this sort.

The reality is that Obama’s actions on the economy are pretty standard modern governmental economic policies. Nothing out of the norm in the modern Western world, and nothing out of the norm in the range of Presidential behavior over the last couple of decades, at least since Reagan. So if it’s not Obama, what is it?
There is now a new breed of economic conservative, steeped in Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.  They believe in a theoretical and pure form of economic free markets, which hold that the free market must be absolute, and absolutely free from regulation. They also believe that the market is the solution to every problem. They have become free market fundamentalists. And because they believe that the free market must be absolutely free, they view any attempt to regulate the market (even if pale by historic norms) as a dire threat.

2.    So, what does this mean for American Politics?

This view has a number of serious implications, but I’ll address two. First it means that conservatives are fighting against an imaginary enemy. They are note fighting against the real economic policies of Democrats, but their worst fears of what they imagine Democrats want.

It is hard to have a rational debate when you don’t even make an attempt to understand your opponents position and arguments in support of that position. This is obvious from much of conservative rhetoric, as exemplified in Rubio’s speech, and in Senator Rand Paul’s surreply to the State of the Union Address.

This means that means that political arguments are mostly dumb. Each side misconstrues the others policies and motives. Conservatives say that there should be no regulation of the market, and suggest that the founders wanted no government involvement in markets, an argument that is false on its face, as anyone who has read history knows. And in response, many liberals argue that conservatives are ignorant of history and willing to destroy the economy based on an untested theory. And the debate becomes a mutual shouting match.

The second problem is that when the arguments are based on extremes, every fight becomes existential. Republicans believe that they are fighting against someone who wants to destroy the free market (and not the reality that they are dealing with someone who wants to engage in a very mild form of regulation, one which is done in most countries on earth). And since they are fighting to save something fundamentally important, every issue is a battle for the soul of America.

I believe that this explains much of modern Republican behavior. One example is their willingness to stop most of President Obama’s appointments. How else can you explain their decision to stop Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense? This is also why they are willing to stop nearly every judicial nominee. In their mind they are stopping Obama’s judges, who are furthering Obama’s agenda, which is designed to destroy the free market. In their view they are not being obstructionist, they are saving the nation.

This view means that every Obama policy must be stopped, and stopped at all costs.

The Roots of Conservative Rage

[Note: This is a bit long. I may re-post in the future and break it up into bit size pieces.]

I’ve been trying to figure out why many conservatives are so entrenched and embittered. One of the causes of the deep and rancorous partisanship in Washington is that some conservatives totally distrust Democrats and refuse to work with them on anything, while many others are deeply hostile to Democrats and highly skeptical of everything they say and do. (Some Democrats certainly respond in kind, but one issue at a time.) This distrust and disdain for Democrats is a manifestation of their political and philosophical views (as I will discuss), but that only gets us part way. So the question remains: why are they so bitter? What is the cause of this conservative rage?

I think there are a number of causes, and I’ll try to briefly describe them.

I:         The History of Loss

In order to understand why conservatives are so bitter I think it helps to set out a very brief thumbnail history of liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism, as some conservatives know, began with Edmund Burke’s reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution. The French Revolution was the culmination of over two hundred years of political liberalism, though before the French Revolution it wasn’t called liberalism. The first liberals sought to free individuals from the overbearing control of external forces. The first liberals were religious reformers, like Martin Luther, who said the church should not dictate matters of conscience. Once Luther broke the hegemony of the Church, other thinkers began to challenge the church in other areas, and the power of one of the dominant historic institutions began to erode. Eventually political philosophers started to question the power of the state (the other dominant historic institution). They sought to liberate the individual from the state’s overweening control over all matters of human affairs. These philosophers and politicians eventually became known as liberals, because they sought to liberate. The French Revolution began as a push for liberal reform, but devolved into a blood bath as some revolutionaries said that the only way to fully liberate French citizens was to (quite literally) decapitate the old order.

Watching from England, Burke was horrified, and said that there is much in traditional society and social norms worth preserving (or conserving, hence “conservatism”). He said that tradition is collected wisdom, and cultural norms and social institutions are the source of social stability. Burke was not opposed to “liberty” or the goals of political liberalism—he had supported the American Revolution as a member of the British Parliament—but he did oppose dramatic or radical change. Better the devil you know, he suggested, than the devil you don’t, particularly when history shows that many devils are released in the chaos of radical change.

Over the last two hundred plus years since the French Revolution the world has changed dramatically. At each stage, political liberals have been at the fore-front of this change. In many cases these changes improved society—the abolition of slavery, the broadening of the political franchise, the expansion of civil rights—but in other cases the changes were disastrous, most noticeably with communism and socialism. And at each stage, political conservatives have been yelling STOP. (The conservative writer William F. Buckley said that the role of the conservative is to “stand athwart history and yell STOP.”)

The history of the last five hundred years has been the history of conservative loss. From Luther on, liberalism has advanced and conservatism retreated. This is particularly notable if you focus solely on the United States. Conservatives lost the fight over slavery, the fight over laissez-faire economics, the fight over women’s suffrage, the fight over unions (though they are making a come-back in that one), the fight over civil rights and segregation, the fight over equality for women, and now it appears that they are losing the fight over marriage equality.

It’s hard to imagine that hundreds of years of losses don’t grind you down, don’t wear on you. I suspect that it has, and I believe that this record is one of the causes of conservative rage. They have been pushed far enough, and they don’t want to be pushed any further.

 II:        The Culture Wars

Conservatives seek to preserve what they view as traditional society. As noted, historic conservatism suggests that there is great value and collected wisdom in cultural traditions and social norms. (A point that I agree with in general, while noting that some traditions are quite odious.) Conservative politicians seek to preserve—to conserve if you will—traditional norms and social institutions. And so their political battles are not just about advancing conservative political goals—limited government, deference to the constitution, strong national defense, etc.—but also about achieving conservative social and cultural goals.  

Yet despite their best efforts the culture has changed, and changed dramatically. But it hasn’t changed because of the efforts of liberal politicians. Despite what conservatives believe, there really is no collusion between liberal institutions (like TV, movies, and music) and liberal politicians. They may share a similar world view, and liberal politicians may support the ideas of cultural openness that allow a wide variety of entertainment to flourish, but that’s not the same thing as saying that liberal politicians are causing cultural change. Put another way, just because the liberal idea of openness creates the cultural environment that allows pornography to exist, doesn’t mean that liberal politicians created, caused, or even endorse pornography.

Society has changed for innumerable reasons. Some are certainly political, but politics is not the main driver of social change. I personally believe that the major contributor to social change is science (and its offish step-brother technology). One example is progestogen—the birth control pill. The pill allowed women to control their bodies, and this had a dramatic impact on society. It spurred the “sexual revolution” (which eventually—though perhaps tenuously—led to the rise of pornography) and it allowed women to participate in the economy. This opened a floodgate which still has not closed. It changed gender roles and traditional families. It threw over our traditional male dominated society, and fundamentally altered our economy. And while liberal politicians were generally supportive of these goals, they did not create them. The effect was political, but the cause was not.       

And therein lies the problem. Despite the political gains that conservatives have made since 1980, the culture continues unabated on the same trajectory. Liberals might say that the culture has gotten more open and tolerant (and a majority of the public seems to agree) but conservatives say it has gotten more licentious and depraved.  

Conservatives have won a great deal politically in the last thirty years or so, but they have clearly lost the culture wars. And since culture is, in their view, intimately tied to politics, this means that many of their political gains are for naught. This produces a sense of futility and growing frustration.

 III:      The Manichean Worldview

Conservatives tend to see themselves as trying to preserve and protect society against those seeking change, and as a result they tend to see the world in an “us versus them” paradigm. This is true even though there isn’t really a single “them” trying to change society. There are many “thems,” and they are not necessarily related. For example, technological advances, as noted above, are one of the main drivers of social change. It is typically profit making businesses that exploit technology (and not liberal institutions like academia or non-profits). And here is the irony: conservatives proclaim themselves as the champion of profit making businesses, and so they are the champion of one of the main forces that erodes traditional society. In any event, and despite this glaring paradox, conservatives tend to feel embattled, and feel like the whole world is aligned against them.

This “us versus them” mindset fits nicely into the American political structure. We have two dominant political parties in the United States, and these two parties compete head to head in every election and over every political and social issue. The two party system is partly the result of historic happenstance, but it’s also partly the result of our “winner take all” electoral system. Other countries have systems that allow voters to vote for more than one candidate for an office, which helps third parties to get candidates elected. But our system doesn’t support this, and so we have two dominant parties.   

Having two parties make it seem like every issue breaks down into a choice between the liberal or conservative policy, and the Democratic versus Republican solution. This is silly and simplistic, but it has become the standard view. Unfortunately our news media seems to have embraced this simplistic worldview. It is, after all, much easier for a reporter to simply present the liberal argument versus the conservative argument than to actually analyze the problem and actually take time describing all of the possible solutions to the problem. (This isn’t really fair to reporters. Some might actually want to do that work, but have limited budgets and tight deadlines.) We also have a culture that likes simple head to head conflict, and the two party system seems to fit this perfectly.    

So, many impulses in American society present issues in a simplistic duality. And some conservatives have a tendency to see the world as aligned against them.  Some of those conservatives believe that they are fighting against the forces of evil, and since they are, in their minds at least, on the side of the angels, every battle becomes a fight between good (conservatives) and bad. And who is it that they are always fighting against? Who have conservatives been fighting against for five hundred years? Why liberals of course. Because of this Manichean “us versus them” world view, some conservatives have come to believe that liberals are constantly pushing policies that harm the nation. And some conservatives take this one step further and ask this question: what kind of person promotes, advocates, or endorses policies that are bad? Why, a bad person, of course. And so some conservatives come to believe that liberals are bad. If you don’t believe me, I commend you to at least two books: “Deliver us From Evil,” by Sean Hannity and “Treason,” by Ann Coulter. What do you think the Evil is that Mr. Hannity wants us to be delivered from? Liberalism. And the subtitle of Ms. Coulter’s book pretty much says it all: “Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.”

So some conservatives believe they are actually fighting against the forces of evil, and have come to believe that liberals are evil. Given that, is it surprising that some conservatives refuse to work with Democrats on anything? Is it surprising then that they act as if every political battle is existential?  Is it surprising that conservative politicians say that elections are about saving society?

 IV:      So Close They Could Taste It

Supposedly advance troops of the Wehrmacht, the German Army in World War Two, pushed far enough into Moscow in November 1941 that they could see the domes of the Kremlin in the distance. They were that close. But then Zhukov and the Russian Army began to push back, and pushed them all the way back to Berlin.

Starting with the election of Ronal Reagan in 1980 conservative principles, ideals, and political arguments have been in the ascendance. In 2000 George W. Bush won the presidency, and the Republicans held on to narrow majorities in the House and Senate (with Vice President Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote.). In 2002 Republicans picked up two seats in the Senate, and eight in the House, thus broadening their governing majority. In 2004 Bush won reelection and the Republicans picked up four seats in the Senate, giving them a commanding 55 seat majority, and five in the House, giving them a comfortable 232 to 201 majority. After a twenty year climb they had solid majorities in the House and Senate, and for six years (2000 to 2006) they controlled the executive and the legislative branches.

And? And did they turn the economy around? Nope. They got sidetracked by a war of choice in Iraq, and nearly totally discredited themselves. And rather than fight for their economic goals, they got sidetracked by divisive social issues. (But recall how the two are intertwined.) They did force through a massive tax cut, on a nearly party line vote, claiming that it would spur the economy and shrink the deficit. And how did that work? Well, we’re now fighting over massive budget deficits, so one could argue that it didn’t work very well. They also continued to push for deregulation, and it was an unregulated financial industry that nearly destroyed the world’s economy. Oops. And finally, did they save the culture? Nope again. Drug use and crime rates might have gone down, but have you turned on your TV lately? Most conservatives see out society as an open cesspit.

In 2006, the Democrats won six seats in the Senate, giving them a 51 to 49 majority (with two independents), and 31 seats in the House, putting them in the majority. Then, in 2008, Barack Obama won the Presidency, in a near landslide over John McCain, and Democrats expanded their majorities in both houses, and when Sen. Jeffords switched parties they had a 60 seat super majority in the Senate. The Democrats picked up twenty one seats in the house to take a 257 to 178 majority. And with those majorities, Democrats pushed through a number of bills Conservatives despise, chief among them Obamacare and a modest economic stimulus. 

Republicans were that close. And then the country rejected them. They are now fighting a rear guard action, trying desperately to dig in, get a toe-hold, to stop every liberal advance.

And not only are they fighting a rear guard action politically, but also culturally. (See II. above.) They believe that if they lose here, they will simply have to fight again, but this time further in their own territory. And so each fight is important. Each fight is, in some regards, existential.

The fight over Obamacare was existential because they knew that if they lost, they were losing the fight over government control of health care. After losing the main battle, every other fight would be a skirmish over the degree of government control of health care, not over the philosophical question of whether or not the government should be involved in health care. The 2012 election was existential because conservatives knew that if Democrats won, they would likely push for expanded rights for gays, possibly including marriage. And in their view, one more pillar of traditional society would fall.

And so every fight in Congress, no matter how minor or silly, becomes an existential fight for the soul of America. The result is that every fight is existential, and every issue a crisis.    

 Part V:                       The Echo Chamber

You can’t talk about conservative rage without talking about the rise of conservative media—particularly talk radio and FoxNews—and its impact on enraging conservatives. In fact it seem like the whole point of talk radio and FoxNews is to enrage conservatives.  They feed their listeners a steady diet of outrage. Their descriptions of liberals and the policies of the Democratic Party are nearly always negative, and descriptions of conservatives and the Republican Party nearly always laudatory. Both distil and refine the conservative message of the depravity of liberals and the nobility of conservatives. They almost always present every idea, every policy, every vote, as a fight between the forces of goodness and light (that is conservatives) against the forces of darkness and evil (that is liberals). This creates a reinforcing feedback loop, and the message gets purer and meaner, and the audience more outraged.

The topic is the subject of many books and magazine articles, and I don’t think I need to belabor the point. You need only turn on the television and watch a few minutes of Sean Hannity, or turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh, to understand what I am talking about.

Conservative media supports the trivial message of partisan duality. It provides a constant reminder to its followers of what they have lost at the hands of liberals, and what they stand to lose should Democrats win again. It is rage, pure and simple.   

Part VI:          The Results of Conservative Rage

In many cases (I am loath to say in all) some conservatives actually have come to believe that liberals are an evil force in the nation. We see this in the title of books by provocateurs like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, and hear it from talk radio and on Fox News. But this view permeates a great deal of conservative views towards liberals. Not long ago, here in Kentucky, a teacher got in trouble for writing on the board of her classroom that you can’t be a Democrat and go to heaven. I have heard from more than one person that they have heard ministers actually say that in church.

Adding to conservative rage is the fact that many liberals fail to understand how angry conservatives are, and how betrayed they feel by their society, their culture and their nation. And so many liberals mock their pain, ridicule their arguments, and laugh at their tears of frustration, which only makes matters worse.   

Most liberals do not understand the depth of conservative rage. They do not understand that many conservatives believe—really and truly believe—that liberalism is the main cause of most, if not all, of the problems facing the nation. Liberals fail to understand that many conservatives see liberalism as a destructive force and liberals as the hand-maiden of national decline.

The result of conservative rage is that some conservatives view liberals as evil, and say so, which ads an ugly dimension to our politics. And some conservatives believe that liberals are evil, and refuse to work with them on anything.

There can be little doubt that this view is one of the contributing causes to the poisonous level of partisanship in Washington, and much of the country. Many conservatives now approach many issues as if they are an existential struggle for the soul of the nation. They say that if Democrats win it will result in the destruction of the nation.

How can you be bipartisan when you consider your political opponent evil? How can a true conservative work with a liberal when they believe that liberals have been responsible for the destruction of the traditions they once held so dear? They can’t, and they don’t.

A conservative media (talk radio and Fox News) feeds this beast. And the Tea Party seems to have internalized this view, and now campaign against any Republican politician for merely working with Democrats (see, for example, former Republican Senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar.)

In their need to fight everything liberal, and every Democratic proposal, Republicans end up doing silly things, like abandoning long held policy positions—Cap and Trade & The Individual Insurance Mandate are two recent prominent examples. They savage former allies for simply questioning conservative orthodoxy. Witness the opposition to former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

And so we have on party that opposes, in a reflexive, knee-jerk manner, everything the other side does. I saw a political cartoon that said that if Obama said he liked to breath the Republicans in Congress would announce that they oppose oxygen. It is almost that bad.

The consequences of conservative rage are political gridlock and a politics of constant crisis.       

Senator Paul, I Beg to Differ

In his questioning of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the attack in the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Senator Rand Paul said: “had I been President at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens [regarding security concerns] I would have relieved you of your duties.” I doubt it.

Rand Paul is a political zealot. Rand Paul is committed, above all, to his political ideas. He is not merely an obstreperous jerk (as some liberals unfairly claim), but is committed to his ideals because he honest believes that they are right. He believes that his views of politics and economics are correct, and if followed will cure many of the nation’s ills. His zealotry is pure, so I cannot fault him for it. I do not think, and would never claim, that he is self-serving or power-hungry. I do not believe that he is in any way. But he is absolutely, positively, completely convinced that his philosophical, economic and political beliefs are correct. And he is burning with passion to impose those views, and the policies that emanate therefrom, onto his nation. And he does this because he honestly believes that those policies will solve many of the nation’s problems. This, then, is a deeply committed partisan ideologue, which in common parlance is known as a zealot.

And like most zealots his loyalty is to his beliefs, and as a result, his personal loyalties are to those who share his beliefs. This is because the only way to achieve the desired political goals is with staunch and unwavering political allies.

And so, if Paul was president (a future scenario that is extremely unlikely) and he had a Secretary of State who was a political ally, and that Secretary of State did something objectionable (like ignore security warnings), I doubt seriously that imaginary future president Paul would relieve that person of his duties. I believe that imaginary future president Paul would fervently defend his friend and ally against scurrilous accusations.

I think that we have some recent history that supports this contention. Did President Bush relieve his national security adviser (Condoleezza Rice) when she ignored national security advisories in the summer of 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks in the United States? No. Did President Bush relieve his Secretary of Defense when it proved that he had completely failed to plan for the post invasion occupation of Iraq? No again.

In both cases political loyalty and ideological compatibility trumped competence. I have little doubt that the same policy will hold true in the imaginary future presidency of Rand Paul.

Notes on the Gun Control Debate

Listening to the debate over gun rights and proposals to regulate guns, I’ve noticed three fairly glaring errors of logic in the arguments of the opponents of gun control.

1.    The Second Amendment is Inviolable.

Proponents of gun rights suggest that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is absolute and cannot be limited. But every constitutional right is subject to some manner of reasonable restriction. Probably the closest example is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Despite this blanket and absolute ban (“make no law”) there are numerous restrictions of the ability to say, write, or publish things. There are laws against obscenity; there are laws against defamation (slander and libel); there are copyright laws that limit one person’s ability to use or incorporate another person’s words or expression; there are a wide variety of time, place and manner restrictions (can’t amplify sound after a certain time, must obtain parade and rally permits, etc. etc.); and there are restrictions on words as action (“fighting words”, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, claiming “free speech” as a defense against charges of conspiracy.)

The courts have long recognized that there must be reasonable restrictions on every right. In fact the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is now a Swiss cheese of restrictions around a few holes of rights. And the Supreme Court, in Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the case that said that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms) said that there can be reasonable restrictions on gun rights.

2.    The Slippery Slope.

Yes, the proponents of gun rights say, there can be “reasonable restrictions,” but the reality is that if we start with “reasonable” restrictions we will never stop, and eventually—and inevitably—we will have the confiscation of all guns. This is the slippery slope argument. But how valid is it.

Again we can use the First Amendment as an example of the fallacy of this argument. Over the course of two hundred years of American history, there have been many different restrictions on the right of free speech, but there has never been a serious attempt to abolish it completely.

Within a few years of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Federalists under President John Adams pushed the Sedition Act through Congress. The Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize the President or the government. (It was passed against the back-drop of the French Revolution and legitimate concerns that French agent-provocateurs might foment instability in America, and was paired with the Alien Act, but most contemporaries thought foreign dangers were widely overblown.) The Sedition Act clearly violates the First Amendment, and Adams’ political opponents (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and the Democratic-Republican Party) howled in outrage. Under this law, newspapers were shut down, and editors were prosecuted and imprisoned. Even many Federalists were shocked by this blatant power grab, and it contributed to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and the demise of the Federalist Party.

Throughout our history, particularly during periods of concern over foreign turmoil, the government has cracked down on speech in a manner clearly in violation of the First Amendment. There have been a number of variations of sedition laws, restrictions on certain forms of speech, and loyalty oaths that clearly punish people for opinions that should be protected under the First Amendment. Despite this, there has never been a serious attempt to allow government censorship. There has always been an ebb and flow, and now we have one of the freest and open societies in the world.

In other words, despite the fact that those wanting to restrict certain speech have succeeded, we have never started down the slippery slope to total government censorship. And despite previous restrictions we now have an extremely open version of free speech. Did you know that nude dancing and pornographic depictions of people engaging in sexual activity is protected as free speech?

If anything, despite the attempts by some to restrict free speech, we have not gone down the slippery slope, we have actually gone the other way. So why would the slippery slope work differently for the Second Amendment than it has for the First?

3.    The “Real Motive” is the total elimination of the private ownership of guns.

OK, gun right supporters say, perhaps it hasn’t happened with the First Amendment. But, some argue, the reality is that those who are now pushing for what they call “reasonable” restrictions, really want a total ban on private gun ownership.

This is an argument I’ve always enjoyed. I find it fascinating that some people think that they can read other people’s minds, see into their heart, and deduce their motives. Some people believe that despite what other people say, they know what they really mean.

There are any number of problems with this argument.

The first, and most obvious, is that it is silly. Really, conservatives? You really believe you can read minds? You really believe that you know what is in other people’s heart and soul?

A second problem is that it implies bad faith. It implies that those who say they want “reasonable” restrictions are liars, and are willing to engage in deception to get their way. Once you accuse your opponent of being deceitful, you poison the well, which makes it difficult to have an honest debate on any issue. And accusing your opponent of bad faith leaves you open to challenges of bad faith, which leads to a downward spiral. Sound familiar?

A third problem is that it imposes the views of a radical minority on the majority. There are certainly some people who support a total ban on all private ownership of guns, but it’s a tiny minority. Conservatives howl when liberals imply that every member of the Tea Party is a racist simply because a few kooks carry racist posters at a rally. The crazies, they say, don’t represent the majority. The same holds true for liberal groups and ideas.

A fourth problem is that it is, more often than not, wrong. We can look at the ebb and flow of the restrictions on the First Amendment to see that. Even those who restricted some forms of speech never attempted to eliminate all forms of speech.

We have also had, throughout our history, different levels of gun control, and there has never been a serious attempt at a total ban. During the 1920’s and the rise of the American Gangster, Congress passed a number of gun restrictions (with the support and endorsement of the NRA, it should be noted). And did they keep going? Nope. During the 1960’s Congress again enacted gun control legislation, in part to limit the ability of black nationalists to carry weapons (and again with NRA support). Were more restrictive gun control measures in the pipeline? Nope.