Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • Establishment Clause Suits

    Ed Brayton has an excellent post over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars on a bill currently before the U. S. House of Representives, H. R. 2679. He argues, successfully I think, that this is an attempt by the religious right to tilt the playing field in their direction.

    Because they have failed so often to prevail in establishment clause cases, they want to make it much harder to sue because of the cost. In addition, this will reduce the penalty against government agencies when they are found in violation of the constitution.

    We need to oppose this bill.

  • Progressives, Minimum Wage, and Strategies

    I receive regular newsletters from the Christian Alliance for Progress, and I really appreciate that organization for its work to reclaim Christianity from the religious right. Christianity is about moral and ethical values, and about caring for our neighbor, and not about making small numbers of people rich or about right wing politics. None of what I am about to write is intended to put down that particular organization. In fact, I suggest you visit their web site, and let their view of Christianity challenge you.

    But Christianity is also not about left wing politics. Christianity can be described as a faith, as a relationship, and as a religion. Following Jesus will certainly have political and social implications. But it is very easy for those on the right, on the left, and even in the center to equate particular political strategies with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Thus right wing politicians today try to use scripture passages favorable to social order and law enforcement as a justification for excessive measures in enforcing immigration, while ignoring other scriptures about helping those less fortunate.

    But left wing, or progressive theologians and politicians are by no means immune to this same problem. In my e-mail today from the Christian alliance I am urged to support raising the minimum wage:

    The Christian faith is not neutral when it comes to financial matters. There are over 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with issues of money and wealth, and many of them concern the economic well-being of people at the margins of society. So it is important that in a nation in which more than 200 million of our citizens profess the Christian faith that we who are believers advocate a Christian ethic in the way that we compensate the people at the bottomof the wage scale.

    Yet none of those 2,000 verses in the Bible actually advocate a minimum wage. They do advocate economic justice. What progressives often miss is the steps between a good principle and its related goals–economic justice–and the process of both defining those goals in a realistic way and creating a strategy to accomplish those goals. It is a failing of politicians of all stripes to assume that the stated goal of a piece of legislation is what that legislation will actually accomplish.

    We have passed repeated laws on drug enforcement, and made our foreign policy hostage to drug policies in other countries even to the extent of invading another country to arrest its president, and yet we still have drugs on the street. As in Vietnam we counted the bodies (or even imagined bodies) of the enemy killed in battle and thus tried to paint a picture of accomplishment, so we now have press conferences in which drug enforcement officials show us the huge amounts of narcotics they have seized. They don’t talk about what’s left behind. Many pieces of legislation that were supposed to make the situation better have been passed, but where are the real results?

    We have passed repeated laws on immigration, claiming that they would solve this problem or that, or make things better. But for some reason–generally just because there are employers ready to hire and pay them–people keep coming across the border. The legislation has failed, yet we keep planning to do more of the same.

    And that brings me to the minimum wage. I’ve had people tell me that I’m pretty reactionary when I regard it as counterproductive to oppose a Walmart store moving into the neighborhood. The jobs are low wage! Who cares? There’s a comment on one of my earlier posts asking how many employees are going to get $12.00 an hour or better. Not many! But there will be people who were getting less before and are getting something now. That’s why people line up to get the jobs at Walmart–they’re available.

    And thus I come to the minimum wage issue. I believe in economic justice. I believe workers should get a fair wage. But my previous two sentences cry out for definition. What is “economic justice?” What is a “fair wage?” The problem is that the legislature can’t create those wages. It doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t produce any additional money. It merely redistributes it. Now I’m not entirely against redistribution. I think it is quite appropriate that taxes are collected and that they pay for infrastructure.

    But every time you try to redistribute through legislation, such as by raising the minimum wage, you need to ask about additional consequences. How will this effect employment generally? Those who think that people would generally rather be unemployed than receive a sub-minimum wage job are generally people who haven’t had to live on very little. What about those forced into a sort of unofficial economy?

    The e-mail I received cites the following report: State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses. It’s interesting to note what is not covered here. What is the economic and population growth rate of those states as opposed to others? In other words, rather than “post hoc ergo propter hoc” what are the combined causes of economic growth in those states with the higher minimum wage? I’m not going to try to do a full analysis of this data, but I’d like to provide a couple of references, first Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage, which deals with data before the above report, though in very similar conditions (1991), and second another report dealing with the number of those who are either not covered by the minimum wage, Below the Minimum Wage, which covers data after that time.

    My primary argument here is not against the minimum wage, though I do oppose any minimum wage, but rather simply that Christians can oppose the minimum wage as a strategy while nonetheless supporting Christian principles of economic justice. Believing that we are to take care of the poor and needy does not entail the notion that legislatures can somehow create money.

    In conclusion, let me quote Ludwig von Mises, from Human Action (p. 769-770 in my 3rd Revised Edition copy):

    The very essence of the interventionist politicians’ wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action or the threat of such action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. . . .

    The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishement of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of unions, tries to fix wage rates <em at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. . . .

    I believe the second paragraph and I suffer from the attitude described in the first. I think the greatest economic justice is accomplished through free markets. No, Jesus didn’t teach free markets. He didn’t teach economics at all. But I think his principles will be best implemented through freedom at the governmental level, and through voluntary charity on the personal level.

    That’s why, while I am pleased with progressive Christian groups that are trying to reclaim Christianity from the religious right, I also must keep them at arms length. It’s too easy to be harmless as doves while failing to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

  • Public Opinion and Policy

    I’m fairly critical of the war in Iraq on a strategic basis, not merely on the strategy of executing the war, but the political strategy that somehow suggested that there was a good outcome to this. But Craig Crawford, in a post titled Opinion-Proof Policy on CQPolitics.com, has a different problem. George Bush, he says, is stubborn, and is ignoring public opinion.

    He says:

    One wonders what would happen if the president made a wrong turn on a road trip. Is there a chance he’d double back to the right path? I think not. Instead, he gives the impression of someone who would circle the globe before admitting he was lost. He is the stereotypical belligerent male that women often complain about, preferring to stay lost rather than stop and ask someone for directions.

    Now I happen to be a male who sees great value in asking for directions, and I think it would be very wise to reconsider both where we have been and where we are going with regard to the war in Iraq. I think some changes in both our tactical and strategic–especially strategic–thinking would be in order.

    But who is it that Crawford is proposing that President Bush should ask for directions? Well, it’s from me and from you, or rather from the American public. The opinion polls. Part of the evidence he cites for the claim that the president is stubborn (a point on which I agree with him) is that he ignores opinion poll after opinion poll.

    Now while I disagree with the president on many things, on this one I agree. The proper way in this country to shift political policies is through elections, not opinion polls. We need to elect statesmen who will use their good judgment to carry the nation through their term of office. We could have a constitution that mandates referenda on various issues. We could even have policty guidance on a daily or hourly basis with the current technology. But that’s not what the constitution mandates. Even more importantly, if you think that policy changes course on a regular basis now, think of what would happen based on opinion polls. Somewhere along the line we had around 80% approval for what Bush was doing. People apparently missed the nature of middle eastern politics, and thought that one could easily wipe of Saddam Hussein’s government, replace it with something else, and depart with a stable Iraq. Months later, long before anyone should have imagined, even at their most optimistic, that such a goal could have been accomplished, people started to get tired of it. That’s public opinion.

    Public opinion is generally irresponsible, not because most of the people are irresponsible. In their daily lives they are likely intelligent, competent, and responsible. But they are not directly connected to the decision making process, and neither the reward nor the blame for the decision falls on them individually enough. It does fall on the persons we elect to office. Often we make bad choices in electing people, and we regret the choices we made, but that is the purpose of elections. Elections are the way to guide policy, not the daily shifting of opinion.

    None of this excuses the Bush administration for any policy shifts, or failure to provide adequate resources, or failures of planning. The only point I disagree with Crawford about is, in fact, that the public opinion polls should have anything to do with it. I suspect that many Democrats are now regretting following those opinion polls in originally supporting the war. It was hard to go against the president’s policy when 70-80% of the public was in support of his policies. But at a minimum, the strategy and the resource level involved needed to be adjusted at that point.

    We need to put our efforts in this country into electing responsible leaders and holding them responsible. I know that’s probably dreaming on my part. Name recognition seems to have more to do with election than policy. But that is the only way we can get the country on track to behave responsibly in the world. We owe it to ourselves to try.

  • What’s the Impact?

    In what is destined to become a classic understatement, Newsweek subtitles their aricle Face of the Enemy about the death of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi Zarqawi’s many roles in the Iraqi tragedy suggest his deminse may have side effects that are very difficult to predict. One thing we can be fairly certain of is that his death will not make all the other terrorists go home and decide to play nicely with others, while not beheading or blowing them up.

    This entire article is well worth reading. Fighting terrorism is not nearly as easy as we want to think. The level of force that is necessary is very large, and the cost is high. Strategic mistakes are very costly. Don’t assume too much from the death of one leader.

  • Excellent Post on Gay Marriage

    There’s an excellent post on gay marriage by Jon Rowe over on Positive LibertyA Theoretical Solution to Maggie Gallagher’s Problem (thanks to Ed Brayton on Dispatches from the Culture Wars for pointing this post out.)

    I’m particularly pleased with the argument here that allows religious toleration for those who believe homosexuality is a sin, and yet supports civil rights for gays and lesbians in society. It’s well worth a read whatever your position is on this issue.

  • Roy Moore (Governor) and Alabama Supreme Court Slate Lose

    There have been a number of articles on these races because of the national issues raised, including the idea that a state court should be permitted to ignore a federal court order that it regards as unlawful. Roy Moore gained fame by refusing to remove a monument to the ten commandments, but when it came down to campaigning for governor he was simply unable to pull it together.

    The article Message and money: Moore needed more, from the Birmingham News provides some analysis. It takes more than a good issue that is popular with the voters to get somebody elected. Alabama voters are probably sympathetic with Moore’s basic position on the ten commandments issue, though ignoring a court order didn’t sit well with some. But a single issue is not sufficient to get someone elected.

    I’m glad to see these particular candidates go down to defeat in Alabama.

  • Mixing up Symbol and Reality

    It’s interesting that the following article, Burning Gods: Fear and Free Speech in America, is written by an atheist. The principle is so strongly applicable to Christian thinking as well.

    Carol’s article reminded me of the Ten Commandments flap in Alabama, which produced some interesting pictures of Christians bowing down in front of the ten commandments monument while praying. I’m certain they were not praying to the ten commandments, but was there a confusion in their view?

    Like Carol, I’m disturbed by flag burning. The flag is an extremely important symbol to me. But it’s a symbol of freedom. If we destroy freedom in order to protect its symbol, just what have we done?

    Note: This issue has not gone away in Alabama. Now there is a slate of judicial candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court who believe they should be able to ignore federal court orders. (See the story here: Alabama revisits issue of federal vs. state power:
    GOP lawmakers argue that state courts aren’t bound by U.S. Supreme Court    .) Look what a misbegotten brood a misplaced symbol has brought forth!

    Confusion of symbol and reality is the heart of idolatry. That’s why images were forbidden. It’s very easy to assume that our images of God or of anything else are the same as the reality, and that can cause us to behave in bizarre ways.

  • Educating for Reality

    This is good stuff! Kudos to North Carolina, not because they have succeeded, but because they are trying in a number of innovative ways to solve actual problems that students are observed having. You always have to try before you can succeed. The Newsweek story is here: The Future is in Their Hands.

    The key here is that North Carolina educational authorities are looking at what their young people actually need in the workplace and organizing their education around that, rather than around some traditional idea of what they need. I think this could get much more radical, and do so to good effect. We need to look at the needs of the workplace and examine every element of the curriculum asking, “Is this helping us attain our goal?”

    Those who are planning for college can afford, and may even need some detours to round out their learning ability, but those who are going into technical jobs need specific skills.

    I hope more states and communities learn lessons from this.

    Note: Something much closer to my daily life is the education of pastors. I would love to see churches, especially the United Methodist Church, re-examine pastoral training in the light of what pastors actually do. For example, training in prayer/prayer ministry, practical advice from other pastors on working with administrative boards and staff-parish relations committees, perhaps a year working with an older, well-chosen pastor as opposed to more classroom time. These are just ideas–I’d just like to see the whole thing looked at. I have yet to work with a pastor in a parish who does not state that a good portion of his seminary training was not relevant to his work.

  • The Danger of Ineffective Intervention

    In February of 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote an essay entitled Revenge! in which I made some comments on the justification of violence. I think what I said then reflects well the situation in Iraq now. I’m not claiming special prophetic gifts here, but folks, I told you so!

    Sometimes that will mean war. Saddam has certainly provided justification through his own actions for someone to deal violently with him. I have no sympathy with a suggestion that somehow the Iraqi government doesn’t deserve to be removed. But I believe there is a second part to the justification of violence. How can things be better when it’s done? In this case that includes the question of who will rule Iraq following an invasion. Will there be a power vacuum left in its place?

    You see, no matter how bad a government is, there is a possibility for something worse. The possibility has been raised of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Does that make us feel more secure? Would we prefer that Iran became a power dominating the region? That is only one scenario, but it is something that must be considered.

    I’d like to expand a bit on those two justifications for violence. In my view, first there must be a reason for a person to take action, for example that they are threatened or attacked, and that the attacker is not receptive to peaceful means. The second, however, is more difficult to meet. I think you need to ask two questions: 1) Will the violent intervention be successful? and 2) Will the resulting situation be an improvement over the previous situation.

    I would add a corollary to these. If you are going to use violence, you have to use enough violence to accomplish your goal. Applying less than that to the situation only results in worse conditions, thus the resulting situation will not be better. It will generally be much worse.

    Let me illustrate. I don’t keep a gun in my house. Some of my friends think having a gun is a simple and ordinary part of being able to protect their families, and would wonder why I would not take this precaution of being prepared to defend myself. Others would congratulate me on my commitment to non-violence. Neither view correctly identify my reason for not having a gun. I’m convinced that my skill with the weapon is not sufficient to make it more likely that I will successfully defend my home than that the weapon will be used by a criminal. I am not committed to non-violence. As a veteran of the U. S. Air Force, I’m willing to see violence used in the pursuit of national goals. In my household I would feel fully justified in putting a bullet between the eyes of an intruder. I just rate the odds of my actually doing so rather low.

    In many of our recent wars (I’m a veteran of Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War) I have seen violence applied, but I have not seen the expected results accomplished, bar the result of Kuwait no longer being under Iraqi occupation. That’s the result of applying violence, but applying it either improperly or in insufficient amounts to accomplish one’s goal. Panama after Noriega was removed was not such a nice place for a very long time. Please note here that I’m not saying that each of these situations would have been better with more violence applied. Especially in the case of Panama, all justifications for the violence failed. Panama (and Noriega) had not provided an appropriate justification for foreign intervention, and no amount of violence applied was going to make the situation better. It was one of the clearest cases I know in which violence was a totally incorrect solution.

    All these thoughts came to mind this morning when I read the story Exporting Chaos from Newsweek. Rami G. Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star in Beirut writes about the fear that he and other middle easterners have whenever us westerners get together to try to decide or influence their fate. There are some things in his article with which I disagree. For example, I don’t feel that we have some duty to provide aid to a Hamas led Palestinian government. Nonetheless, I think his remarks are almost all very well directed, and we in the west would do well to listen.

    Despite my belief that we have no duty to provide aid to Hamas, we were the ones who urged the elections. We wanted to deal with a “democratic” Palestinian government, but we wanted them to elect the “right” people. Well, folks, that is not how democracy works. You can want democracy, and you can want the “right” people in power, but if you want both, and think you can have both, you are toying with insanity. I think our foreign policy is doing precisely that.

    We want democracy in Iraq, we want human rights. We want a unified state. We want that state to be friendly to us. We don’t want it to be an Islamic state. Hold it a second! Have we considered that the people who are going to vote in that democracy might not want the same things we do? Their concerns may well have little to do with protecting the United States from terrorism. They are more concerned with how their neighborhoods are run. One aspect of the way many of them want their neighborhoods run is Islamic standards and Islamic law. We are not going to be successful in accomplishing all those goals that I listed.

    Saddam Hussein maintained a government that was more friendly to western values than anything we are likely to see by means of an election. If we wanted western values established in Iraq, we should have followed a different strategy. I suspect we would have to occupy the country with substantially larger numbers of troops and rule with a ruthlessness that would make Saddam Hussein’s rule look positively heavenly. We aren’t that ruthless (at least I hope we aren’t). It’s not a practical policy. But what we have done is exercised violence in pursuit of that sort of a goal, but done so in a way that will not be successful. That means that those who die in this war will, in the end, have died in the process of making things worse. It’s not their fault; I’m not criticizing the American troops on the ground. I’m criticizing the planning and goal setting (or lack of it) that put them in that place.

    I’m also not very happy with the democratic response to the planning. It has always seemed to be more or less that we should do something that is very much like what the current administration has done only a bit less of it. Democrats are just as infected with the bug of solving everybody else’s problems with American solutions as are Republicans. Democrats seem to be even more muddled on how we should do it.

    Violence is sometimes necessary. War is sometimes necessary. But it is a tragedy when we resort to violence, and fail to make the resulting situation better.

  • Life goes better without legislation

    A citizens’ commission in Oregon thinks there is a need for rules against drunken legislating. In a story titled Resolved: Legislating goes better sober, MSNBC tells us that this commission would like to protect Oregon voters from the drinking habits of those they elect to their legislature.

    I kid you not, drunken legislating. They suggest rules should be enacted against conducting the business of the state of Oregon while intoxicated, and to provide possible penalties.

    Now I am not advocating the benefits of legislating while drunk, though after reading some of the stuff these guys put out, one might suspect it was written while drunk, or at least that it would be easier to read while under the influence of something or other. But I do think we have a problem here. We are progressively shifting more and more responsibility off of the voters. First we had term limits. I thought they were a bad idea when they first became law, and I think they continue to be a bad idea today. We had term limits already, and we still have them: Elections. But somehow we assume that the voters can’t really choose the right candidate (a view with which I have some sympathy), and that providing a bunch of laws to make it safer for stupid voters will somehow help.

    The drunken legislator or staff aid is not threatening anyone’s life unless he gets behind the wheel of a car. Well, he could be threatening somebody’s life by passing stupid legislation, but who believes that we’re safe from that even with allegedly sober legislators. Unless he goes out and gets behind the wheel of a car, the proper people to hold him accountable are the voters. And the proper people to let the voters know about such behavior are those in the media.

    All we do with increasing numbers of laws about these things is take responsibility away from the voters. We have here a republic. The foundation of that is the will of the people. If the people are stupid we’re stuck with it. Adding detailed regulations won’t really help.