Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Back To School - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest
Back To School - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest: What a great article explaining what a student should seek out of college education. Regrets for those pursuing architecture, engineering, or the arts. This article does not deal with how to handle those pursuits.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Birthright citizenship
Lord Justice Blackstone was an eminent justice in the British legal system before the American Revolution but after Britain's Glorious Revolution in 1688. His book Commentaries on the Common Law reads like an 18th Century legal textbook. It is broad in scope and filled with citations to case law and Parliamentary legislation, unusual for writings of the era. As a result, it has a level of scholarship that would leave many modern writers to shame.
I have not made a study of the matter, but, after 20 years of amateur historical research on the development of the US Constitution and 16 years of practicing law, my impression is that few lawyers or scholars today are well versed on the history of citizenship or immigration law. They regularly feign knowledge but only reflect an understanding of history that goes back to their birth or the birth of the US Constitution.
I would suggest any commentator wishing to be informed on these matters should read at least a handful of books from the Pre-Revolutionary era. Samples include John Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, King Alfred's Code (c. 890, if recollection serves), Magna Carta, etc.
Blackstone on citizenship is truly enlightening as to the development of British policies on citizenship and the Parliamentary motivations for those policies.
Much of the debate on the topic these days focuses on the Fourteenth Amendment and its history. This is a dangerous error.
We all know that words have meaning. We all know that words' meaning shift over time, otherwise "doom" would still refer to pronouncements of judgment by the king rather than an ominous future. Lawyers all know that law is filled with not just buzzwords but legal phrases that significance and a history of interpretation. Sometimes the interpretation is consistent. Sometimes the interpretations vary widely. Still, beginning with the University of Bologna cannon law professor Gratian in the 12th century, legal interpretation has ever increasingly studied different cases to struggle to find consistent interpretations of principle. These struggles often fail, but the attempt is always enlightening. These struggles also cause legal phrases like res ipsa locquitur or due process or self-incrimination to carry meaning for lawyers far beyond what the average layman might suspect.
The Fourteenth Amendment, read in the context of Blackstone, has a similar problem. Blackstone explains in his Commentaries what "subject to the jurisdiction" of the King means. He explains the statutory sources for it. He reads into a justification for it.
I will summarize, poorly, his argument. He breaks the world of people living in Britain at any one moment into three groups: citizens, denizens, and foreigners. He breaks citizens into natural born and naturalized.
Citizens are persons who owe an exclusive duty of allegiance to the king and only the king. The king owes a duty of protection back. Citizens could own real estate. They could transact business.
Denizens were persons not owing an exclusive duty of allegiance. The denizen's loyalty was split between his own king and the limited respect owed to the British crown while in Britain. The denizen had to respect the laws on public order, commerce, and behavior while in Britain and was subject to royal punishment if the denizen violated those rules, just like a citizen. The denizen could not at Blackstone's time own real estate but he could engage in commerce.
The foreigner in England was commonly represented by the foreign king's ambassador. He had no duty of allegiance to the British crown and few rights.
A citizen was any person born to a citizen and to most denizens but never a foreigner.
Blackstone explained that the British Parliament, under Queen Anne or William and Mary, set a policy of easy citizenship to encourage commerce. The theory was encouraging commerce on British shores increased the wealth of the British Isles, so why discourage immigration.
It is significant in the modern context to note that during this era, there was no public welfare programs or other government handouts, other than by grants of land. Consequently, the incentives to move to England were limited to commercial gain for most foreigners.
These same types of policies were carried to the American colonies, so the British Parliament passed legislation to clarify when German immigrants to the colonies could naturalize and become British subjects.
It is at this point, my knowledge has a gap in need of filling. I have not studied the exact policies of the states on naturalization law from the Revolution to the Fourteenth Amendment. By generalized understanding is that the states varied widely. The Southern states refused to recognize blacks as citizens.
At this time there was still no public welfare programs of note. There was large scale immigration to fill the vast empty tracks of middle America.
The context of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on Blackstone's analysis, tends to suggest a mindset started in post-Glorious Revolution of encouraging immigration as means of encouraging commerce, which was logical in the vast colonial and newly formed American context.
Nowhere in the analysis does Blackstone suggest that there is natural right to citizenship by birth. He suggests a legislative history. The logical inference arising from that is that this history should inform us about what the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases mean. It should also suggest to us that legislation has always been important to determining who is entitled to citizenship. It is not fixed and immutable.
Since Blackstone shows that "subject to the jurisdiction" had specific meaning under Parliamentary legislation, the meaning could be changed by Parliamentary action. When the Parliament ceased having authority in American on July 4, 1776, and ratified by Parliament in 1783, American legislatures including Congress stepped into the gap. The Constitution then fixed this authority in Congress alone. The Congress has the right to amend the definition of who is subject to its jurisdiction. In the current environment, naturalized citizens have to take the oath of citizenship. The first statement is a renunciation of any dual loyalties to the jurisdiction of the new citizen's birth.
I cannot find any provision in the 8 US Code sec. 1001 et seq. that suggests that any limited oath of allegiance is required for any alien applying for permission to enter the US. How is someone who owes little allegiance to the US fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Once that person leaves the US, the US has no jurisdiction over the person except for rights of re-entry and whatever assets, debts, or obligations the alien left behind.
Is it enough for a legal alien to run up an unpaid mortgage on his home and leave the US to confer citizenship on his child born abroad? The alien is subject US jurisdiction in rem for the house and in personam for the deficiency judgment. Is that what the US Constitution would define as "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?
I highly doubt it. I would suspect though that a person subject to being drafted into the US military would be. A male, US citizen has to register with the Selective Service. A green-card alien has to register, too. A person who can be required to put his life on the line for the country (just like the king could demand of his subjects owing him allegiance) is truly fully subject to the jurisdiction of the country.
If that alien can abscond and avoid military service legally, can his child be automatically a US citizen?
Congress has defined citizenship. It is has defined citizenship by birth in the US Code, Title 8. The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow states to have separate definitions of citizenship or to consider a baby born in its borders and subject to the jurisdiction of the US as anything but a citizen.
Blackstone's category of denizen has little meaning in my limited study of American immigration law.
The question then become problematic. The old Ark and Slaughterhouse cases were decided before modern immigration law. Ark turned on a partial reading of Blackstone.
My concern here is persons who enter the US illegally. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the context of criminal law and property ownership. This is similar to Blackstone's denizen. But a denizen presumably had not restriction on his entry into England. Is this a reasonable analogy to the US?
Should a person who commits a misdemeanor by entering the US without authority have the ability to pass citizen to his or her child because of the parent's criminal behavior?
Granting the privilege of being subject to US jurisdiction is Constitutional right reserved to Congress. Neither Supreme Court nor the illegal alien has the authority to change that. Only the Constitutional Amendment process can change it.
Parliament granted a generous definition of becoming subject to British jurisdiction and Congress can retract it. The question for courts is limited to whether a particular person is within the limits or outside of it as a matter of fact.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to all on US soil, if born here only as a result of criminality. The history of these laws and logic simply do not allow such a conclusion.
I have not made a study of the matter, but, after 20 years of amateur historical research on the development of the US Constitution and 16 years of practicing law, my impression is that few lawyers or scholars today are well versed on the history of citizenship or immigration law. They regularly feign knowledge but only reflect an understanding of history that goes back to their birth or the birth of the US Constitution.
I would suggest any commentator wishing to be informed on these matters should read at least a handful of books from the Pre-Revolutionary era. Samples include John Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, King Alfred's Code (c. 890, if recollection serves), Magna Carta, etc.
Blackstone on citizenship is truly enlightening as to the development of British policies on citizenship and the Parliamentary motivations for those policies.
Much of the debate on the topic these days focuses on the Fourteenth Amendment and its history. This is a dangerous error.
We all know that words have meaning. We all know that words' meaning shift over time, otherwise "doom" would still refer to pronouncements of judgment by the king rather than an ominous future. Lawyers all know that law is filled with not just buzzwords but legal phrases that significance and a history of interpretation. Sometimes the interpretation is consistent. Sometimes the interpretations vary widely. Still, beginning with the University of Bologna cannon law professor Gratian in the 12th century, legal interpretation has ever increasingly studied different cases to struggle to find consistent interpretations of principle. These struggles often fail, but the attempt is always enlightening. These struggles also cause legal phrases like res ipsa locquitur or due process or self-incrimination to carry meaning for lawyers far beyond what the average layman might suspect.
The Fourteenth Amendment, read in the context of Blackstone, has a similar problem. Blackstone explains in his Commentaries what "subject to the jurisdiction" of the King means. He explains the statutory sources for it. He reads into a justification for it.
I will summarize, poorly, his argument. He breaks the world of people living in Britain at any one moment into three groups: citizens, denizens, and foreigners. He breaks citizens into natural born and naturalized.
Citizens are persons who owe an exclusive duty of allegiance to the king and only the king. The king owes a duty of protection back. Citizens could own real estate. They could transact business.
Denizens were persons not owing an exclusive duty of allegiance. The denizen's loyalty was split between his own king and the limited respect owed to the British crown while in Britain. The denizen had to respect the laws on public order, commerce, and behavior while in Britain and was subject to royal punishment if the denizen violated those rules, just like a citizen. The denizen could not at Blackstone's time own real estate but he could engage in commerce.
The foreigner in England was commonly represented by the foreign king's ambassador. He had no duty of allegiance to the British crown and few rights.
A citizen was any person born to a citizen and to most denizens but never a foreigner.
Blackstone explained that the British Parliament, under Queen Anne or William and Mary, set a policy of easy citizenship to encourage commerce. The theory was encouraging commerce on British shores increased the wealth of the British Isles, so why discourage immigration.
It is significant in the modern context to note that during this era, there was no public welfare programs or other government handouts, other than by grants of land. Consequently, the incentives to move to England were limited to commercial gain for most foreigners.
These same types of policies were carried to the American colonies, so the British Parliament passed legislation to clarify when German immigrants to the colonies could naturalize and become British subjects.
It is at this point, my knowledge has a gap in need of filling. I have not studied the exact policies of the states on naturalization law from the Revolution to the Fourteenth Amendment. By generalized understanding is that the states varied widely. The Southern states refused to recognize blacks as citizens.
At this time there was still no public welfare programs of note. There was large scale immigration to fill the vast empty tracks of middle America.
The context of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on Blackstone's analysis, tends to suggest a mindset started in post-Glorious Revolution of encouraging immigration as means of encouraging commerce, which was logical in the vast colonial and newly formed American context.
Nowhere in the analysis does Blackstone suggest that there is natural right to citizenship by birth. He suggests a legislative history. The logical inference arising from that is that this history should inform us about what the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases mean. It should also suggest to us that legislation has always been important to determining who is entitled to citizenship. It is not fixed and immutable.
Since Blackstone shows that "subject to the jurisdiction" had specific meaning under Parliamentary legislation, the meaning could be changed by Parliamentary action. When the Parliament ceased having authority in American on July 4, 1776, and ratified by Parliament in 1783, American legislatures including Congress stepped into the gap. The Constitution then fixed this authority in Congress alone. The Congress has the right to amend the definition of who is subject to its jurisdiction. In the current environment, naturalized citizens have to take the oath of citizenship. The first statement is a renunciation of any dual loyalties to the jurisdiction of the new citizen's birth.
I cannot find any provision in the 8 US Code sec. 1001 et seq. that suggests that any limited oath of allegiance is required for any alien applying for permission to enter the US. How is someone who owes little allegiance to the US fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Once that person leaves the US, the US has no jurisdiction over the person except for rights of re-entry and whatever assets, debts, or obligations the alien left behind.
Is it enough for a legal alien to run up an unpaid mortgage on his home and leave the US to confer citizenship on his child born abroad? The alien is subject US jurisdiction in rem for the house and in personam for the deficiency judgment. Is that what the US Constitution would define as "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?
I highly doubt it. I would suspect though that a person subject to being drafted into the US military would be. A male, US citizen has to register with the Selective Service. A green-card alien has to register, too. A person who can be required to put his life on the line for the country (just like the king could demand of his subjects owing him allegiance) is truly fully subject to the jurisdiction of the country.
If that alien can abscond and avoid military service legally, can his child be automatically a US citizen?
Congress has defined citizenship. It is has defined citizenship by birth in the US Code, Title 8. The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow states to have separate definitions of citizenship or to consider a baby born in its borders and subject to the jurisdiction of the US as anything but a citizen.
Blackstone's category of denizen has little meaning in my limited study of American immigration law.
The question then become problematic. The old Ark and Slaughterhouse cases were decided before modern immigration law. Ark turned on a partial reading of Blackstone.
My concern here is persons who enter the US illegally. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the US in the context of criminal law and property ownership. This is similar to Blackstone's denizen. But a denizen presumably had not restriction on his entry into England. Is this a reasonable analogy to the US?
Should a person who commits a misdemeanor by entering the US without authority have the ability to pass citizen to his or her child because of the parent's criminal behavior?
Granting the privilege of being subject to US jurisdiction is Constitutional right reserved to Congress. Neither Supreme Court nor the illegal alien has the authority to change that. Only the Constitutional Amendment process can change it.
Parliament granted a generous definition of becoming subject to British jurisdiction and Congress can retract it. The question for courts is limited to whether a particular person is within the limits or outside of it as a matter of fact.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to all on US soil, if born here only as a result of criminality. The history of these laws and logic simply do not allow such a conclusion.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Equal hatred for Dems and GOP?
I was reading the highlights on Newsbusters.org regarding Laura Ingraham's appearance on the Today. The blog suggested that Matt Lauer pushed the notion that the Democrats and GOP are equally hated.
I am a reliable Republican and I passionately dislike many Republican members of Congress. If I were answering a pollster, I might answer two-bit questions about passion that suggest that I equally hate Republicans as Democrats. "Q: Do you like or dislike Democrats? Republicans?" "A: Yes, yes.
I know that is not a fair representation of my thoughts. It's just my one-bit answer to a two-bit question.
In truth, I don't like many Democrat representatives as persons, politicians, philosophers, or any other way. I don't like many Republicans as politicians and philosophers.
Being a student of political science (since that is my minor and a law degree gives me different insights), many Republicans don't understand the history of the discipline as arising from the Progressive Movement and their desire to manipulate the populace. The discipline taught in school is about finding out what people think and making them vote the way you want them to. There is little interest in political philosophy.
I don't like Republican politicians because they have been bought and trained by members of the Progressive Movement and their progeny. Consequently, a movement that is built around the principles of Locke, Montesquieue, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al. is doomed to failure. These are philosophical ideals and systems with an abundant history of success. Since loving these ideas requires study and thought, people who gravitate to these ideas don't think about making them simple.
The common excuse is the ideas can't be put on bumper stickers. With most political science analysis relying heavily on polling, which in turn is built on simple phrases that are easily tested as multiple choice quizzes, the Republican movement has confused itself. It can't express its ideas simply, so its politicians don't even try regularly enough (a few ex-judges, doctors, Rep. Ryan and Bachmann aside).
The lack of effort to persuade is what creates my frustration with Republicans. They don't share a bigger, clearer vision, so little changes and stays changed. McCain had no idea what he wanted to do so he moved few to vote for him.
The Democrats of 2008 (especially Obama) made all sorts of noises about Hope and Change and big visions. I had no use for them because there were no specifics (without tunneling into their websites) and their promises were wildly contradictory. Now that the Democrats true desires have been exposed and tried, we know what kind of mess they are seeking. I can say objectively that I dislike the Democrat vision.
So, we can say clearly, for those of like mind to me, my dislike of Democrats is both as to the person, the political strategy, and daily tactics. The Republicans I dislike because of the lack of strategy and poor choice of tactics.
No, Mr. Lauer, it is not fair to say that both sides are disliked equally. Democrats can have a similar if opposite reaction. To reduce these complex thoughts down to being equal is sophistry if not down right stupidity.
I am a reliable Republican and I passionately dislike many Republican members of Congress. If I were answering a pollster, I might answer two-bit questions about passion that suggest that I equally hate Republicans as Democrats. "Q: Do you like or dislike Democrats? Republicans?" "A: Yes, yes.
I know that is not a fair representation of my thoughts. It's just my one-bit answer to a two-bit question.
In truth, I don't like many Democrat representatives as persons, politicians, philosophers, or any other way. I don't like many Republicans as politicians and philosophers.
Being a student of political science (since that is my minor and a law degree gives me different insights), many Republicans don't understand the history of the discipline as arising from the Progressive Movement and their desire to manipulate the populace. The discipline taught in school is about finding out what people think and making them vote the way you want them to. There is little interest in political philosophy.
I don't like Republican politicians because they have been bought and trained by members of the Progressive Movement and their progeny. Consequently, a movement that is built around the principles of Locke, Montesquieue, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al. is doomed to failure. These are philosophical ideals and systems with an abundant history of success. Since loving these ideas requires study and thought, people who gravitate to these ideas don't think about making them simple.
The common excuse is the ideas can't be put on bumper stickers. With most political science analysis relying heavily on polling, which in turn is built on simple phrases that are easily tested as multiple choice quizzes, the Republican movement has confused itself. It can't express its ideas simply, so its politicians don't even try regularly enough (a few ex-judges, doctors, Rep. Ryan and Bachmann aside).
The lack of effort to persuade is what creates my frustration with Republicans. They don't share a bigger, clearer vision, so little changes and stays changed. McCain had no idea what he wanted to do so he moved few to vote for him.
The Democrats of 2008 (especially Obama) made all sorts of noises about Hope and Change and big visions. I had no use for them because there were no specifics (without tunneling into their websites) and their promises were wildly contradictory. Now that the Democrats true desires have been exposed and tried, we know what kind of mess they are seeking. I can say objectively that I dislike the Democrat vision.
So, we can say clearly, for those of like mind to me, my dislike of Democrats is both as to the person, the political strategy, and daily tactics. The Republicans I dislike because of the lack of strategy and poor choice of tactics.
No, Mr. Lauer, it is not fair to say that both sides are disliked equally. Democrats can have a similar if opposite reaction. To reduce these complex thoughts down to being equal is sophistry if not down right stupidity.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Experience Necessary to be a Justice
Does a person appointed to the US Supreme Court need to have experience as a judge?
This is a question that we see everywhere. It is a great question. We have a history of great justices with no experience on the bench.
Chief Justice John Marshall is one. Then-Justice-Select Rehnquist is another (Remember he had over 10 years experience when President Reagan promoted him to Chief Justice).
To Kagan's credit, she has more Supreme Court experience than John Marshall or Rehnquist on the day of her nomination. She has clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Thurgood Marshall and served as Solicitor General. Both are very important positions for the day-to-day activities of the Court. While that experience amounts to no more than a handful of years, it does count.
Her experience as Dean of Harvard Law does count. That is a responsibility known for herding cats. That knowledge of human interaction where human interaction is not known for being a day-to-day requirement is important. If you don't have the experience before you get to the Court, you are not likely to obtain it on the Court. The Court has famously been described as nine separate law firms with each Justice running his or her own independent operation. That does not create a lot of interaction other than via memo.
So is she fit for duty? (Oooo . . . . I didn't mean to step into the military recruiting debate where she refused to allow military recruiters into Harvard Law.) Is she fit to be Justice? If she ascribed to Learned Hand's unique philosophy of progressivism and judicial restraint, I would have fewer than objections than the more recent push to toward activist, Aliniski-ite, socialism empowerment. A Justice with socialistic proclivities common to self-described liberals or progressives is less corrupting of our system with an adherence to judicial restraint. There erroneous decisions are less damaging to the system because they move in smaller steps. It gives time for the body politic to study and react to decisions.
The danger of activist judges and Justices is not their philosophy but their leaps in logic that are nearly impossible to fix. Roe v. Wade's failings are more a matter of leaps in logic than what it proscribes. If a voter hated abortion before the decision, a small step would allow the voter to advocate legislative adaptations and fixes to the decision. If a voter is prevented from changing anything about abortion, hatred and resentment boil over. Consequently, the liberals on the Court have created the anger that they blame on anti-abortion promoters.
If Kagan, like many recent liberal decisions, would push to prevent voters from having a say over religion, prayer, government expenditures (e.g., Kansas City public schools), private expenditures (e.g., mandatory ER treatment without payment), we will have made no improvement over Stevens.
This is a question that we see everywhere. It is a great question. We have a history of great justices with no experience on the bench.
Chief Justice John Marshall is one. Then-Justice-Select Rehnquist is another (Remember he had over 10 years experience when President Reagan promoted him to Chief Justice).
To Kagan's credit, she has more Supreme Court experience than John Marshall or Rehnquist on the day of her nomination. She has clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Thurgood Marshall and served as Solicitor General. Both are very important positions for the day-to-day activities of the Court. While that experience amounts to no more than a handful of years, it does count.
Her experience as Dean of Harvard Law does count. That is a responsibility known for herding cats. That knowledge of human interaction where human interaction is not known for being a day-to-day requirement is important. If you don't have the experience before you get to the Court, you are not likely to obtain it on the Court. The Court has famously been described as nine separate law firms with each Justice running his or her own independent operation. That does not create a lot of interaction other than via memo.
So is she fit for duty? (Oooo . . . . I didn't mean to step into the military recruiting debate where she refused to allow military recruiters into Harvard Law.) Is she fit to be Justice? If she ascribed to Learned Hand's unique philosophy of progressivism and judicial restraint, I would have fewer than objections than the more recent push to toward activist, Aliniski-ite, socialism empowerment. A Justice with socialistic proclivities common to self-described liberals or progressives is less corrupting of our system with an adherence to judicial restraint. There erroneous decisions are less damaging to the system because they move in smaller steps. It gives time for the body politic to study and react to decisions.
The danger of activist judges and Justices is not their philosophy but their leaps in logic that are nearly impossible to fix. Roe v. Wade's failings are more a matter of leaps in logic than what it proscribes. If a voter hated abortion before the decision, a small step would allow the voter to advocate legislative adaptations and fixes to the decision. If a voter is prevented from changing anything about abortion, hatred and resentment boil over. Consequently, the liberals on the Court have created the anger that they blame on anti-abortion promoters.
If Kagan, like many recent liberal decisions, would push to prevent voters from having a say over religion, prayer, government expenditures (e.g., Kansas City public schools), private expenditures (e.g., mandatory ER treatment without payment), we will have made no improvement over Stevens.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Power Line - The DOJ Seven, Michael Mukasey's take
Power Line - The DOJ Seven, Michael Mukasey's take
The reason that the so-called Al-Qaeda Seven are so disturbing to me is less about whether the DOJ has attorneys that have represented these terrorists or not. It is about the Democrat tendency toward a mental habit that logisticians would call the fallacy of the band wagon and the popular press would call -- in an Orwellian turn of phrase -- GroupThink. I prefer to think of it less about what it affirmatively is and more about what it excludes. I would call it "monolithicism." All ideas must bow down to the monolithic idea.
Monolithicism is most likely to occur in a situation where the elites not only reject the people's ideas of what the content of rules should but that the people should have any input into the discussion. The monolithic idea must be rammed down the people's throat in such a way that the people never get to undo the new rule. Imagine that you are Napoleon III trying to redesign Paris so that you can prevent the people from barracading the streets in protest, like happened in Victor Hugo's Les miserables. To fix the problem, you take the people's property, destroy their buildings and homes, so that you can build the Champs-Elysee as a monumental street connecting the the Arch of Triumph and the historic Concorde Plaza. To build the monolithic street, the people had to be walked over. The excuse for this process is that Napoleon III leaves behind a legacy of an increasingly peaceful Paris with a majestic street that people like me adore. The pain of some people for the monolithic of historic proportions.
Think of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is completely subject to legislative bodies. There is no shadow (yes, I know the phrase is "penumbra," but what is "penumbra" but a type of shadow) of the Constitution that can be said to favor killing babies. There is no literary or philosophical concept in existence in 1787 (that I have seen, admittedly) that addresses abortion as a natural right. Even so, the Supreme Court shoved the monolith of abortion down our throats. The people have been in an uproar for and against ever since.
Monolithicism justifies all its evils as the perpetrators know better than the people. The people must not only be ignored, they must be penned in so that their complaints have no effect. (Just think about Denver's Protest Pen at the 2004 Democrat National Convention.) In America to build our equivalents of the Champs-Elysee, we have had eminent domain. The persons forced to give their land don't like it, but they get compensation. The system can be abused, but the property owner does get a hearing before a judge and a right of appeal on the pricing and legitimacy of the eminent domain procedures applied. Not terribly monolithic.
This brings me back to the Al-Qaeda Seven. The DOJ has a very strange notion that the President should have no input on how the department should be run due to legal and prosecutorial ethics. I agree that it should have a limited impact from White House staff who are not members of the bar (compare many states rules requiring owners and directors of law firms to be lawyers). I vigorously disagree that the President should have no say.
Yet, as an outsider, I fear the Al-Qaeda Seven and their friends are in a position to impose their shared monolithic notions about how a terrorist should be treated by US soldiers and law enforcement without any input from people of the quality of former AUSA Andrew McCarthy, the blind sheikh's prosecutor. Since the President is not allowed any real input, I don't trust AG Holder, and I hear of few leading luminaries in Holder's (not Obama's) DOJ, what input do the people have to prevent the imposition of monolithicist ideas about terrorists being abused by the US?
The reason that the so-called Al-Qaeda Seven are so disturbing to me is less about whether the DOJ has attorneys that have represented these terrorists or not. It is about the Democrat tendency toward a mental habit that logisticians would call the fallacy of the band wagon and the popular press would call -- in an Orwellian turn of phrase -- GroupThink. I prefer to think of it less about what it affirmatively is and more about what it excludes. I would call it "monolithicism." All ideas must bow down to the monolithic idea.
Monolithicism is most likely to occur in a situation where the elites not only reject the people's ideas of what the content of rules should but that the people should have any input into the discussion. The monolithic idea must be rammed down the people's throat in such a way that the people never get to undo the new rule. Imagine that you are Napoleon III trying to redesign Paris so that you can prevent the people from barracading the streets in protest, like happened in Victor Hugo's Les miserables. To fix the problem, you take the people's property, destroy their buildings and homes, so that you can build the Champs-Elysee as a monumental street connecting the the Arch of Triumph and the historic Concorde Plaza. To build the monolithic street, the people had to be walked over. The excuse for this process is that Napoleon III leaves behind a legacy of an increasingly peaceful Paris with a majestic street that people like me adore. The pain of some people for the monolithic of historic proportions.
Think of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is completely subject to legislative bodies. There is no shadow (yes, I know the phrase is "penumbra," but what is "penumbra" but a type of shadow) of the Constitution that can be said to favor killing babies. There is no literary or philosophical concept in existence in 1787 (that I have seen, admittedly) that addresses abortion as a natural right. Even so, the Supreme Court shoved the monolith of abortion down our throats. The people have been in an uproar for and against ever since.
Monolithicism justifies all its evils as the perpetrators know better than the people. The people must not only be ignored, they must be penned in so that their complaints have no effect. (Just think about Denver's Protest Pen at the 2004 Democrat National Convention.) In America to build our equivalents of the Champs-Elysee, we have had eminent domain. The persons forced to give their land don't like it, but they get compensation. The system can be abused, but the property owner does get a hearing before a judge and a right of appeal on the pricing and legitimacy of the eminent domain procedures applied. Not terribly monolithic.
This brings me back to the Al-Qaeda Seven. The DOJ has a very strange notion that the President should have no input on how the department should be run due to legal and prosecutorial ethics. I agree that it should have a limited impact from White House staff who are not members of the bar (compare many states rules requiring owners and directors of law firms to be lawyers). I vigorously disagree that the President should have no say.
Yet, as an outsider, I fear the Al-Qaeda Seven and their friends are in a position to impose their shared monolithic notions about how a terrorist should be treated by US soldiers and law enforcement without any input from people of the quality of former AUSA Andrew McCarthy, the blind sheikh's prosecutor. Since the President is not allowed any real input, I don't trust AG Holder, and I hear of few leading luminaries in Holder's (not Obama's) DOJ, what input do the people have to prevent the imposition of monolithicist ideas about terrorists being abused by the US?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Reflections on 1994 and 1996
As Obama goes down in flames, more discussion of his one-term presidency is arising.
Rush Limbaugh often describes Rep. Gephardt's analysis from over a decade ago that the more unemployment goes up, the better the Democrats will be served at the next election.
In 1994, we all know Clinton lost the Congress. Reasons are debated. My judgment is that Clinton pushed ridiculous ideas and bad budgets. The Republican Congress forced Clinton to correct those two items.
In 1996, the good, gentle, and moderate Dole ran against Clinton with little distinction or clear ideas. He was the un-Clinton.
Now the discussions of who is best served by Obama losing the Congress become very interesting. If a largely Republican Congress arises in 2011, Obama has two choices: go Clinton or go further left. He won't be able to stand still. Political operatives will suggest following Clinton. Common sense would concur.
The remaining question then is whether Republicans merely select the un-Obama, like they did in 1996. Recent history suggests that this is not the most likely result. McCain was very nearly the un-Obama. The Republican base has no use for him as a politician (albeit a great man in nearly other sphere). The base wants somebody more like themselves.
Senior citizens like my father love Reagan for his 1964 Republican Convention speech. Middle age citizens like me love Reagan for his presidency. Young Americans just starting to vote have no memory of Reagan. They know him as intimately as they know George Washington -- as a historical figure. Yet strangely, these three groups can speak about Reagan from a policy perspective in inverse order. The youth have been raised on discussions of the Reagan history. They don't remember the Lebanon barracks bombing, but they know he was tough on Islamic radicals. They have heard the stories even if they can't recite them.
The middle age remember the events and have discussed the theory. They are most intimately aware of the Reagan legacy that they want to pass to their kids.
The senior citizens remember the events but have varying awareness of the history or larger context. Their awareness of the history can be best traced to talk radio listenership. Listeners know the historical summary best.
What does that mean for Obama's re-election in 2012? The more the Republican candidate can tap into that shared knowledge of the Reagan legacy while not getting lost in trying to repeat history, the better the Republican will succeed. The candidate needs to know the Reagan legacy and be able to discuss it. The candidate needs to be able to explain what the internet is and how Al Gore did not invent it or what Global Warming is not and how Al Gore helped invent the myth.
We are dealing with a world filled with myths, legends, and frauds. Stories all. George Washington's cherry tree may be a myth, but it seek goodness. Reagan's use of Pointe d'Hoc may have illustrated the bravery of men in a legendary struggle from which legends of individual soldiers can and should arise. Then we have Obama and Gore and Pelosi all pushing frauds of winning the Iraq War based on Obama's brilliant new strategies, Global Warming, or budgetary deficits create strong economies and jobs.
The Republican candidates needs to be able to tell stories of inspiration and insight and puncture the balloons of fraud and lies. Can we predict Obama's fall now? No, because we don't know who the other candidate is. Let's not assume that such a person will succeed until we know that we don't have another Dole or McCain.
Rush Limbaugh often describes Rep. Gephardt's analysis from over a decade ago that the more unemployment goes up, the better the Democrats will be served at the next election.
In 1994, we all know Clinton lost the Congress. Reasons are debated. My judgment is that Clinton pushed ridiculous ideas and bad budgets. The Republican Congress forced Clinton to correct those two items.
In 1996, the good, gentle, and moderate Dole ran against Clinton with little distinction or clear ideas. He was the un-Clinton.
Now the discussions of who is best served by Obama losing the Congress become very interesting. If a largely Republican Congress arises in 2011, Obama has two choices: go Clinton or go further left. He won't be able to stand still. Political operatives will suggest following Clinton. Common sense would concur.
The remaining question then is whether Republicans merely select the un-Obama, like they did in 1996. Recent history suggests that this is not the most likely result. McCain was very nearly the un-Obama. The Republican base has no use for him as a politician (albeit a great man in nearly other sphere). The base wants somebody more like themselves.
Senior citizens like my father love Reagan for his 1964 Republican Convention speech. Middle age citizens like me love Reagan for his presidency. Young Americans just starting to vote have no memory of Reagan. They know him as intimately as they know George Washington -- as a historical figure. Yet strangely, these three groups can speak about Reagan from a policy perspective in inverse order. The youth have been raised on discussions of the Reagan history. They don't remember the Lebanon barracks bombing, but they know he was tough on Islamic radicals. They have heard the stories even if they can't recite them.
The middle age remember the events and have discussed the theory. They are most intimately aware of the Reagan legacy that they want to pass to their kids.
The senior citizens remember the events but have varying awareness of the history or larger context. Their awareness of the history can be best traced to talk radio listenership. Listeners know the historical summary best.
What does that mean for Obama's re-election in 2012? The more the Republican candidate can tap into that shared knowledge of the Reagan legacy while not getting lost in trying to repeat history, the better the Republican will succeed. The candidate needs to know the Reagan legacy and be able to discuss it. The candidate needs to be able to explain what the internet is and how Al Gore did not invent it or what Global Warming is not and how Al Gore helped invent the myth.
We are dealing with a world filled with myths, legends, and frauds. Stories all. George Washington's cherry tree may be a myth, but it seek goodness. Reagan's use of Pointe d'Hoc may have illustrated the bravery of men in a legendary struggle from which legends of individual soldiers can and should arise. Then we have Obama and Gore and Pelosi all pushing frauds of winning the Iraq War based on Obama's brilliant new strategies, Global Warming, or budgetary deficits create strong economies and jobs.
The Republican candidates needs to be able to tell stories of inspiration and insight and puncture the balloons of fraud and lies. Can we predict Obama's fall now? No, because we don't know who the other candidate is. Let's not assume that such a person will succeed until we know that we don't have another Dole or McCain.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thoughts on Moderates
This is a year old post, but I think the reasoning is sound.
One of the great ironies of life is the Uriah Heep Syndrome. In Charles Dickens's book David Copperfield, the character Uriah Heep spends the entire book reciting how humble he is. Every time he appears, he says, "I am so humble." By the end of the book, his inflated ego become abundantly clear. UHS is the syndrome where a person describes himself as being what he wishes to be, but is clearly the opposite.
I find most moderates as having severe cases of UHS. They believe that they are the smartest and best informed people in the room. As a result of this information, they are best able to assess which candidate is best by looking at each candidate issue by issue.
In practice, these moderates are not interested enough to do the research to find out issue by issue what each candidate believes. But even if there is an exception or two that does do an analysis issue by issue, moderates by definition have no political philosophy to inform their judgment. They have no knowledge base to draw on. I don't mean to say that a moderate physician has no knowledge of medicine to draw on. I mean that moderate physician has no political philosophical knowledge. Ask that physician to compare and contrast Marx and Burke. In my experience, that physician can't.
That physician has every reason to proclaim his depth of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and practicality. If not for those, the physician could not succeed professionally. Unfortunately that professional focus risks depriving the physician from being able to converse in great depth in political philosophy. He is an ideal candidate to seek comfort in declaring himself to be a moderate.
This declaration is really a failed attempt of turning ignorance of politics, economics, and law into an asset.
UHS is really likely to occur when a person does not like what that person observes in himself. To remove the undesirable characteristic, the person declares himself to be the opposite.
UHS is part of the normal tools of psychological defense mechanisms. We all do it. The chubby person that declares that he is on a diet when he eats the donut is playing a non-verbal form of UHS. The fat woman in the tight pants. The high school drop out that is worried about being disrespected. These people all have self-image that they are trying to ignore and play a different personality to the world.
The severe cases of UHS are not just minor deflections but are the person's identity. They embrace the UHS and will destroy themselves to live it out.
For Republicans to be successful, they need to stand firm on identified core philosophies and repeat the truth. When confronted with a moderate or a liberal, do not accept the false premises that the moderate or liberal use. If the moderate says, "I look at the candidate issue by issue." The Republican needs to look the moderate squarely in the eye and challenge them on the truth of this statement by playing along. The Republican could say, "Wow, how many hours of research do you do on each candidate to make a decision. I mean, take the last XXX race where Candidate A was a radical Democrat and Candidate B was a strict Conservative. Walk me through the issues."
I would submit that the moderate can't do that. They say the analysis is done, but they don't. They pick up catch phrases and recite those. But they don't understand the catch phrases actual impact.
Moderates need to be challenged. If they go Democrat, they go Democrat. Once they start moving though, the moderate is more likely to become a Republican. They're usually only moderates because the Democrats make them uncomfortable and they don't hear enough about what Republicans believe from non-Democrats.
Challenge the moderates. Win a Republican convert.
One of the great ironies of life is the Uriah Heep Syndrome. In Charles Dickens's book David Copperfield, the character Uriah Heep spends the entire book reciting how humble he is. Every time he appears, he says, "I am so humble." By the end of the book, his inflated ego become abundantly clear. UHS is the syndrome where a person describes himself as being what he wishes to be, but is clearly the opposite.
I find most moderates as having severe cases of UHS. They believe that they are the smartest and best informed people in the room. As a result of this information, they are best able to assess which candidate is best by looking at each candidate issue by issue.
In practice, these moderates are not interested enough to do the research to find out issue by issue what each candidate believes. But even if there is an exception or two that does do an analysis issue by issue, moderates by definition have no political philosophy to inform their judgment. They have no knowledge base to draw on. I don't mean to say that a moderate physician has no knowledge of medicine to draw on. I mean that moderate physician has no political philosophical knowledge. Ask that physician to compare and contrast Marx and Burke. In my experience, that physician can't.
That physician has every reason to proclaim his depth of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and practicality. If not for those, the physician could not succeed professionally. Unfortunately that professional focus risks depriving the physician from being able to converse in great depth in political philosophy. He is an ideal candidate to seek comfort in declaring himself to be a moderate.
This declaration is really a failed attempt of turning ignorance of politics, economics, and law into an asset.
UHS is really likely to occur when a person does not like what that person observes in himself. To remove the undesirable characteristic, the person declares himself to be the opposite.
UHS is part of the normal tools of psychological defense mechanisms. We all do it. The chubby person that declares that he is on a diet when he eats the donut is playing a non-verbal form of UHS. The fat woman in the tight pants. The high school drop out that is worried about being disrespected. These people all have self-image that they are trying to ignore and play a different personality to the world.
The severe cases of UHS are not just minor deflections but are the person's identity. They embrace the UHS and will destroy themselves to live it out.
For Republicans to be successful, they need to stand firm on identified core philosophies and repeat the truth. When confronted with a moderate or a liberal, do not accept the false premises that the moderate or liberal use. If the moderate says, "I look at the candidate issue by issue." The Republican needs to look the moderate squarely in the eye and challenge them on the truth of this statement by playing along. The Republican could say, "Wow, how many hours of research do you do on each candidate to make a decision. I mean, take the last XXX race where Candidate A was a radical Democrat and Candidate B was a strict Conservative. Walk me through the issues."
I would submit that the moderate can't do that. They say the analysis is done, but they don't. They pick up catch phrases and recite those. But they don't understand the catch phrases actual impact.
Moderates need to be challenged. If they go Democrat, they go Democrat. Once they start moving though, the moderate is more likely to become a Republican. They're usually only moderates because the Democrats make them uncomfortable and they don't hear enough about what Republicans believe from non-Democrats.
Challenge the moderates. Win a Republican convert.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Compartimentalizing Morality
Absolutely brilliant point on environmentalism's failure in environmental issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)