Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • Supreme Court Favors Free Speech

    That title should illustrate the interesting types of headlines that have heralded the Supreme Court decision permitting advocacy ads by corporations and presumably unions in the time leading up to an election.

    The one from CNN reads Supreme Court eases ban on business, labor political spending, which is fairly calm and tells us approximately what the Supreme Court did. (I intentionally slanted my headline.) MSNBC.com, on the other hand, reads Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits, which implies action somewhat broader than the Supreme Court actually took.

    I welcome this court decision. I have never been able to understand how either public financing of campaigns or restrictions of what people can say around an election can be squared with free speech. It seems to me that the first amendment to our constitution has taken a beating in the area of campaign finance.

    I do understand the claim that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals, yet at the same time it seems to me that freedom of association should cover that with regard to corporations or to unions.

    I think this is also an area in which we should carefully measure results. Campaign finance regulations have a tendency to make criminals out of people who are otherwise trying to obey the law because they are often difficult to interpret. If the other guy interprets them more broadly than you do, you are at a disadvantage. If you interpret them too broadly, you can end up going to jail.

    What I think many people fail to realize is that large government bureaucracies don’t control the tendency of large corporations to overstep their bounds. Rather, they tend to end up with people from the industry regulating their friends in the industry. Thus “regulatory failures” should not be surprising in the case of banks or investment firms. The people who regulate them are largely tightly connected to the people who work in them.

    The same is true in the case of campaign finance. The current major parties select those who wind up on the Federal Election Commission, and the people in power create laws that work best for the large parties, making it difficult for minor parties or independent candidates. Today on TV I heard a commentator hit the nail on the head. (I wish I could remember her name.) She said that this decision had a good chance to drastically weaken the power of the two major parties.

    While that may frighten folks in Washington, I think it would be a great thing for the country. It will fit well also with the information age and particularly social media. I don’t think it will make as much difference as some of the pundits are saying, but it will surely make it possible for many more players to influence politics, and to do it openly.

    Update (1/22/2010):

    Allan Bevere links to my post, and there is a good discussion going at his blog, though it is largely populated by folks on the other side. The link to the opposed viewpoint he provides is at The Country Parson.

    Two more useful links:

    1. The Volokh Conspiracy with a short summary of the meaning of the decision
    2. Dispatches from the Culture Wars
      Key quote: “The standard reaction seems to be: “Oh my god, corporations can now spend tons of money to influence the outcome of elections.” But I’ve got news for you: They already do that. They always have. And the campaign finance laws did not prevent it.”

  • Yes is No and No is Yes

    … or at least that’s what Democrats in the Oregon state legislature tried to say. This is six months old (HT: The Agitator), but it’s too good not to post.

    Consider the wording in the bill:

    “A measure referred to the people by referendum petition may not be adopted unless it receives an affirmative majority of the total votes cast on the measure rejecting the measure. For purposes of this subsection, a measure is considered adopted if it is rejected by the people.”

    Did you read it carefully? Yep. No is yes and yes is no. Well, they got caught, so they didn’t actually do it, or so I understand.

  • Counting the Independents

    Each election various pundits and politicians seem to be surprised at the way independent voters swing. I think they have a bit of a problem comprehending the word “independent.” I am a bit wary of using “we” when discussing independents, but as an independent voter myself I am generally not that shocked by the swings.

    Following last year’s election I wrote:

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    The problem, I think is that politicians and the vast majority of the media think in terms of the two major parties. One either supports the Republican agenda in general, or the Democratic agenda. Thus it is often difficult for them to understand how so many people switch allegiances. Now there are a certain number of folks who are voting on appearance or personality, or perhaps because someone they know votes in a particular way.

    For me, it is almost always a case of holding my nose and voting. It is very rare that there is a politician who really sounds good to me and also has some realistic chance of being elected. So each candidate race is a separate decision. Who do I agree with the most and also on the most critical issues? Is that person a person of integrity so that I can count on them to be who they say they are?

    For whom can one vote if one generally opposes war and also opposes abortion? What does one do if one believes we have a duty, as a society, to aid those less fortunate, but at the same time supports civil liberties and generally light handed regulation? All of these things become individual factors.

    I find that the Democrats are frighteningly trusting of government solutions when it comes to social issues, and frighteningly unconcerned with the track record of existing programs, just as long as those programs seem to support their goals. I find Republicans frighteningly trusting of government in the law enforcement, defense, and intelligence fields, and oblivious to the horrible track record of our agencies in those areas.

    Both parties are very good at spotting the failures of the other, but much less so at looking carefully at themselves. So independents tend to swing back and forth a bit, just trying to find someone, anyone better.

    Now we have this election today in Massachusetts. (Note that I’m in Florida and don’t have a vote today.) There is great shock that the Republican may win. With possible errors in polls, I wouldn’t make that a prediction, but it looks pretty likely to me. In many ways this is because the Democratic candidate is not that good. Even if I agreed with her in general, I would have serious doubts about voting for her due to some of her actions as a prosecutor. (I doubt my misgivings are a driving force in the election, however.)

    The question is just what question Republicans are going to take from this. I know they will crow at such a victory. But whether they get long term benefit from it or not will depend on whether they are listening or not. Many of us out here are quite clear on the message not to trust government too much, but in general, we don’t trust government with any of the power, and we want every aspect of government, including law enforcement and defense, to be accountable. We want all our politicians, not just the ones out of power to be ethical, and we expect the ethical standards to be enforced.

    I have not been very surprised by President Obama. I expected that the idealism would largely die when he got to Washington, DC, and it has. He has been more moderate than his platform, but again I expected that. But being pragmatic, and letting the issues you said were important during the campaign die, are two different things. Many of those who voted for candidate Obama hoped that President Obama’s stance against such things as torture would stand. But now in many cases the Obama White House is defending positions staked out by the Bush administration.

    Some Republicans are claiming this is because Bush was right after all. I disagree. I think it is because of the corrupting power of power. The current administration doesn’t want to investigate torture because it might appear partisan. But let me ask what it looks like when you don’t investigate it?

    I expect to disagree with much of what goes on in the halls of government. I pick and choose my issues when I vote for candidates. What I expect, however, is that a politician will stand up for what he believes. If I voted for him, and I knew I disagreed with some position, I do not give him credit for failing to live up with that position even if he changes it to one closer to my own.

    So my message to Republicans is much what it was to Democrats after 2008–Don’t count on me. You’ve got to earn my next vote.

    I suspect many independents are thinking something very similar.

  • Martin Luther King Day 2010

    Two personal experiences shape my thoughts each day on Martin Luther King day. The first was the memory of those in our small north Georgia community who were gratified that he had died. Few of the young folk had any idea why they should think that way, though we had regularly had “scares” that there would be riots in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee, not that it was likely such things would touch our heavily segregated community.

    For my parents and our family, the experience was a little bit outside of our experience. We were Canadians transplanted into the American south and so attitudes took turns that we did not expect. My parents were very clear that we were not to make racist remarks, and they challenged racist attitudes on an individual level. I don’t think they really comprehended the extent of institutional racism at the time, as we didn’t discuss the politics in any detail.

    The second experience that shaped my understanding was living in Georgetown, Guyana when I was in my teens. There I learned what it meant to be a minority, when I was the sole white member of my youth group. Now let me be clear that I was treated well by all concerned. I did not experience prejudice in that circumstance, but even without prejudice there is a certain feeling of isolation that goes with being the only person of an identifiable type.

    I was listening today to a commenter on one of the TV programs–I don’t recall which–who said that the laws had changed, but people’s hearts and minds still had a long way to go.

    I think that caller was right, but I should note also that laws may help change hearts and minds, but they are not fully efficient at the task. For example, desegregating education has given many young people experience of other races, which is helpful in changing their future attitudes. But the attitudes still exist.

    During the last election I was getting my hair cut at a local barber shop while early voting was open. The general consensus was that “those people” were busy stealing the election through early voting. It didn’t take long to realize that “those people” were African Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

    I hope that we will all become much better at seeing ourselves in other people’s circumstances. As Christians, we need to understand how religious minorities feel here in our communities. That might help us become even more sympathetic for Christian minorities overseas. Understanding what it means to be in the minority would, I think, make us better people.

    For me it took a very long time to put it all together, and I can’t guarantee I’ve understood it all even now. But by the grace of God I’ll continue to progress in understanding others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (slightly paraphrased from the I Have a Dream speech.)

  • Taking Offense Easier than Logic and Evidence

    Kevin DeYoung makes this claim at the evangel blog. Amongst many good things, he says:

    For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

    While I like to avoid giving unnecessary offense, when one must offend in order to speak what one believes is the truth, then it’s time to speak. We truly are an easily offended culture.

    HT: One Eternal Day

  • Parents are Key to Science Education

    Jonathan Smith, Vice President of Florida Citizens for Science (of which I am a board member) presents a column on science education in Florida today in the The Ledger (Lakeland, FL):

    A key quote:

    Parents are the ones who must endeavor to help shape their children’s future by guiding them down the paths of interests and provide support and encouragement. It is strikingly obvious current trends have shifted in this generation towards the pursuit of science and not for the positive. “Science is for nerds” and” real cool kids don’t study” have become serious social clichés and do have a strong influence on our children.

    Just so!

    So parents, do you care just how well your children do in their education in general? Do you care how they do in science? Jobs are going to get fewer and fewer for people without a good education.

  • Small Offense Provokes Much Violence

    Yesterday I posted an aside regarding the attempted murder of the Danish cartoonist who drew the cartoon that provoked violent responses in the Muslim world.

    Today I saw this news story regarding reactions to a Malaysian court ruling that non-Muslims could use the word Allah. Behold how much violence a small matter kindles!

    I am an advocate for courtesy in discourse as long as it comports with honesty. But I want to use this story to clarify that while I am in favor of courtesy, I oppose laws that demand it, and I do not believe laws should require it, nor do I believe that its lack can justify violence.

    Right now, a great deal of the discussion regarding offending religious people relates to Islam, though the situation in Ireland indicates it’s much broader. So just to be clear, I also oppose laws against blasphemy as defined by Christians, nor do I think there is a justification for violent anger over insults.

    If I went further, speaking as a Christian, I believe that we should handle such things graciously and honestly, rejecting any violent response, and remaining courteous even when others are not. But that courtesy should be our choice, not something imposed.

  • Poor Offended People Want to Murder Someone

    I agree with this note which calls this column, titled Prejudiced Danes Provoke Fanaticism, execrable. Freedom of thought requires the freedom to offend, and being offended does not justify violence.

  • A Good Politician

    Uses social media. Receives request for help. Personally shovels driveway. Kudos! More on CNN (HT: Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire).

  • Is Intelligent Design Religious?

    David Opderbeck has an excellent post on the question of whether intelligent design (ID) is religious and how this relates to our view of natural theology. (HT: Through a Glass Darkly)

    In the post, he gets into an issue that I have raised before, which is the question of whether we really want to advocate teaching of a sort of “creation lite” (my term) in public school classrooms. I personally say this not form the perspective of keeping religion out of the public school classroom, but rather to keep the state out of the business of teaching religion. I believe that two things generally result from the state trying to teach religion: 1) They do it badly, and 2) They tend eventually to want to enforce whatever it is they have decided to teach.

    Opderbeck says:

    But even if a plausible argument could be made for the constitutionality of teaching some version of ID in a public school, I personally find this “wedge” strategy pragmatically and theologically suspect….[I’ll leave you to go discover the analogy he uses where I have the ellipsis!]

    The imagined Christian majority in this country often seems to believe that whatever is taught in the classroom will be acceptable to them. But a review of the differences in viewpoint among Christians on many issues should suggest that it is difficult to create a single course that is acceptable to all. I would not object to a course in the Bible as literature, for example, provided it was clear that this was not a class in the Bible as a source or object of faith.

    I think Christians ought to seriously consider whether or not strategies used to get some form of religion taught in the public school classroom might do more damage to faith than their potential benefit (or damage) to the state. Perhaps we should recapture the notion that it is the task of parents to pass on their faith to their children.