Category: Politics

I actually wrote this thing a couple of days ago because I was tired of all the hype about lobbying reform, which I expect will make much less difference to the way business is done than the hype about it suggests. Like pay as you go, it’s something that makes good headlines, but the question is always whether the people who pass it will live up to the expresse ideals. I didn’t post it immediately because I couldn’t find a good analysis of the bill or any nice incidents to link to.

That is, until this morning, when MSNBC.com sent me a late Christmas gift. In an article titled So much for congressional lobby reform? they tell us about a great democratic celebration, similar to an earlier Republican celebration when they were in the same position. All of which goes to show that the lobbyists and the congressman are still going to be working closely together.

Which leads me to what I think is the only possible solution: Elections. Elections would seem to be the basis of a republican form of government, but it seems that the basic responsibility of citizen’s to inform themselves and to vote are fading further and further into the background. But we already have elections and they don’t seem to work, you say? Indeed we do. But if elections don’t work, nothing else will. If we as voters don’t start turning out the people who behave in a corrupt manner, there is nothing that will do it.

What will happen, of course, is lots of things that create headlines, so that we’ll feel like something has been done. That’s why laws are named as they are: “No Child Left Behind,” “A Bill to Simplify . . .,” etc. Nobody names a bill “Lots of regulations to make a marginal change, at best,” though that would be closer to the truth.

Campaign finance reform, some aspects of lobbying reform, term limits, and other similar projects are often hailed as great benefits for democracy. We have some of it in the first 100 hour efforts of the new Democratic leadership in congress. But I think we need to ask whether passage of new rules is the proper response to violations of the old rules, and whether restricting people’s freedom is a proper response to a lack of responsibility. (See House Democrats Prepare to Tighten Lobbyist Rules.)

I think it’s quite appropriate to place limitations on what elected leaders can accept, but I’m extremely worried about restrictive reporting requirements on lobbying organizations, and other methods that tend to restrict political commentary or restrict access of citizens to their government. In the flurry of reform legislation, one thing that seems to be neglected is that we’re talking about people who were caught, and very frequently punished for their violation of the old rules. Under those circumstances, I suspect the new packages have more to do with making people feel that their legislators are doing something substantive than with actually accomplishing anything new.

I received an e-mail alert from the Traditional Values Coalition. The reason I bring up their alert in particular is that TVC is an organization with which I almost never agree. In fact, this particular alert is typically hysterical on a number of issues. In general, I do not wish the TVC well in their efforts. But I absolutely do not want to prevent them from having access to elected leaders to lobby. In reality, however, I doubt that lobbying groups will be more than inconvenienced.

I’m going to be watching the results of this legislation. It’s hard to work through all the details and people disagree on what will apply and what will not. For example, will reporters who work for companies that have lobbyists still be permitted to go to lunch with congressional staffers? Some interpretations suggest not. The real question is this: Two years from now, or four or six, will we be able to say honestly that congress is less corrupt, more responsive and responsible?

In a fine example of political maneuvering, the new Democratic majority in congress is pushing a pay as you go policy on spending, to combine with greater transparency on pork barrel projects.

Since it’s probably impossible to have federal building projects determined strictly by some neutral group on the basis of value in building infrastructure and the economy, I suppose making the methods of getting pork into the budget more transparent is a good thing. At least it’s a better thing than what we have. So is “pay as you go,” something the federal government has not done well on in the past.

But passing a bill that says they’re going to pay as they go may not be the same thing as doing it. As voters, we should be very watchful of what actually goes on. Some of the methods that could be used to circumvent such legislation could include creative accounting practices (corrupt corporations have nothing on the federal budget on this point) and special exceptions for important things. Of course those items would be passed with much less fanfare.

Both Republicans and Democrats are talking balanced budgets these days. Clinton would up with a surplus. At this point, I’m not willing to believe that the Democratic congress will show similar restraint to what President Clinton did. I’d love to be surprised.

The important thing is not to be deceived by the names of bills, or by passage of laws that are essentially intentions. Look for the performance.

Barack Obama has been making quite a splash in the media, and while the general reaction is often annoyed or amused, my view is that the pressures of a presidential campaign are quite adequate to test the strength of a candidate. I have not decided to support him, and besides as a registered independent voter, I don’t participate in Florida’s closed primaries, but I’m going to keep paying attention.

Thus, I read with interest the MSNBC.COM article, Obama’s past could be an issue, in which we are informed that “Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago.” Well, shock and amazement! We have a presidential candidate who overcame a past and has made himself into a fine citizen and political leader. Christians especially should have empathy with this story, because it is the quintessential story of redemption, part of the central story of our faith.

When I heard that George W. Bush had been involved in a DUI, I hoped that it would not become a factor in his election simply because it was something he had overcome. I would have preferred that it had not been hidden, but I respect the right of a person not to publicize every aspect of his past. (I had many other concerns about George W. Bush, but that wasn’t one of them.) The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not that likely we’ll find a leader with no flaws in his past, though we may not be aware of them. Further, I suspect it is not a good idea to have a leader who has led a flawless life.

In Obama’s case, however, rather than having somebody remember what he had done at the last minute, we have an excellent source. Senator Obama himself wrote a book and told about it. Again, Christians should be empathetic–he gave his testimony; he overcame the negatives and moved forward.

I have no idea who I’ll end up supporting in the presidential election a bit less than two years from now. But this bit of the past for Senator Obama will be a point in his favor–not against him.

(HT: The Panda’s Thumb)

The way this case is being handled illustrates why religious and traditional beliefs about the physical world should be subject to scientific testing. I don’t mean that one’s beliefs about spiritual matters need to be so tested, but when your beliefs or mine say something about the physical world, then they are testable by scientific means, and the scientific method is not merely the best method we’ve discovered to acquire accurate data about the physical world; it’s the only adequate method.

Traditional prejudices, however acquired, often blind people to facts. Who a person is, where they came from, or what their religious beliefs become more important than any factual data. I like religion, but if I allow the way I think things should be according to my theology, then I will get into the habit of denying objective evidence. Subjectivity is often good in spiritual matters, but it is bad in discovering physical reality.

These six people have been sentenced to death because they are working in a country in which people have been repeatedly schooled to deny reality in any case in which it conflicts with religious dogma or tradition. We need to save them, but we also need to correct the culpable stupidity that makes such an obviously wrong verdict possible.

Visit the Amnesty International web site for updates. Donate if you can. (Thanks to Andrea Bottaro at The Panda’s Thumb for the links.)

In my experience, political correctness is invoked more as a way to stifle requests for courtesy and consideration than it is to actually stifle freedom of speech. People here in the southern part of the country want to avoid the charge of political correctness at all costs. It’s sort of like being accused of being a whimp, lacking gun and pickup truck, and never shooting any deer.

But for me courtesy is just that–courtesy. I don’t vary my holiday greetings to match with the person I’m addressing because the political correctness monitor is going to get me. I do it because I like to greet people in the way they would like to be greeted, not in the way I want to greet them. I don’t use racial epithets because I think they’re inappropriate, not because someone made a law or because someone is looking over my shoulder.

There is an important line I’ve drawn here. I don’t want to make you use any particular greeting. I don’t want to force you to live and speak according to my standards or anyone else’s standards. In my view, free speech is not just the law–it’s a good idea! Besides the wonders that a free exchange of ideas does for truth-finding, it’s useful simply to prevent boredom. If everyone said precisely what I thought they should say at the time and in the manner in which I though they should say it, well, it would sound a lot like this sentence, and that would be dull.

But there’s a very solid line that one can cross, and that is illustrated in some policies in place at Michigan State University. You can read about these in a report from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars) I doubt that Michigan State University is alone in this. Ed made a number of good comments on this policy in his post. I’m looking at it for just one thing: The line!

What has happened here is simply that force has been added to political correctness, and the result is inappropriate suppression of expression. It would be fine for the university to make certain suggestions but to force the students to produce certain results is ridiculous and despicable. Hazy standards given the force of law have been the bane of religion for millenia, with an absolute certainty that when religion is given the force of law the result will be destructive of both religion and law. Now hazy standards in dialogue and discourse are similarly given the force of law, and the result will not be good.

It would be a good thing for freedom in this country if we learned to distinguish between simple courtesy–the way I want to address people–and suppression of free speech. When the force of law is placed behind the words I want to hear, then free speech is being suppressed, and nothing good will follow. This is the liberal form of despotism. A private business can choose what to permit and not to permit. A government agency cannot.