Why "Founderstein"? Read the original essay here.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Why We Should Care that 279 Members of Congress Have Promised Not to Do Their Jobs


"For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress."—Former US Senator Alan Simpson, “I Guess I’m a RINO”

       When the current moment becomes history, I suspect that historians will be as baffled as I am by the fact that 238 members of the House of Representatives and 41 Senators—all but three of them Republicans—have signed something called the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” in which they promise that they will never (ever, ever) cast a single vote to raise taxes. Given that “the power of the purse” is one of the most important duties entrusted to Congress by the Constitution, the pledge they have taken amounts to a solemn oath not to do their jobs.
       Let me be very clear here. I am not saying that the job of a legislator is to raise taxes. It is to determine, by the facts available at a given moment, what the appropriate rate of taxation should be. This is not an easy job; it requires a painstaking balancing of different interests and potential consequences, which is why legislators get large staffs, big salaries, and choice parking in downtown Washington DC to deliberate about such things. Nothing shuts down the purpose of a deliberative body quite like an a priori declaration that you will not, under any circumstances, deliberate.  
       Anyone making an absolute and unconditional promise not to ever vote to increase taxes must, of logical necessity, accept one of the following statements: 1) that there will never ever ever come a time when raising the tax rate is in the best interest of the country; or 2) that something (i.e. campaign contributions, the political support of the anti-tax lobby, etc.) is more important than doing what is in the best interest of the country.
       Since no politician will ever admit to believing the second statement (as true as it might be), the only possible grounds for signing the tax pledge is that one believes that there is NOTHING that could EVER justify a tax increase, which is clearly an insane position to take, our not being gods or having access to the future and all.
       The Founders—especially Alexander Hamilton—thought about this stuff quite a bit, and they tried hard to design a system that would be capable of responding to anything that the future might throw at them or us. In Federalist #34, Hamilton argues that the government’s power to tax should be virtually unlimited because the issues requiring a government response are impossible to anticipate:

We must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

          What is the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” if not a unilateral decision by an individual elected official to limit the government's capacity to raise revenue for an indefinite period of time? It assumes, not only that the government does not need more revenue right now; it assumes that the government will never, under any conditions, need more revenue. Such an assumption as Hamilton clearly understood, is an abdication of the Constitutional responsibility to govern.
       Alan Simpson has apostatized from the Republican Party to tell us that now would be a good time to consider raising taxes--and cutting spending--in order to reduce the deficit. There are some fairly compelling reasons to listen to him. The federal tax rate is currently at its lowest point since the end of World War II, and, not coincidentally, the deficit is higher as a percent of GDP than it has been since 1947. Serious economists on both the left and the right agree that we cannot manage the debt without raising taxes, and Americans support modest tax increases for deficit reduction by a 2-1 margin. And yet, as Simpson acknowledges, we will almost certainly not see any Republicans voting to increase taxes any time in the near future because “Grover Norquist won’t let them.”
       The important question, now, is ours: why do we keep sending people to Congress to do a job that they have signed a written agreement not to do?

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Eight Great American Political Novels that People Don't Read Much Anymore





1. Democracy, by Henry Adams (1880): Henry Adams was the original "Anonymous" political author. and Democracy remains one of the finest political novels ever written. The novel , whose authorship was not revealed until the 1920s, tells the story of Madeline Lee, a wealthy young widow who comes to Washington, D.C. a generation after the Civil War. She becomes a famous hostess, an informal power broker, and the romantic object of several powerful men, including Silas P. Ratcliff, the new Treasury Secretary and a likely contender for the presidency. 
          As Madeline sees how the Washington game is played, she becomes increasingly comfortable in a world of moral grey areas, but she holds to the belief that there is some core of virtue underneath the American system of government that resists the corrupting nature of politics. The central question of the novel is the question of "American Exceptionalism": is the American political system fundamentally different than other political systems? Are Americans, at some level, immune from the corruptions of power and position? "There is only one thing in life," she confides to a friend "that I must and will have before I die. I must know whether America is right or wrong."
          At the time that Adams wrote Democracy, America had yet to become a military or economic superpower. It was still a young nation, still licking its wounds from a disastrous civil war. But the novel's central question could not be more important today, when "American Exceptionalism" has become a hiss and a buzzword and American power has shaped the world for more than 75 years.
  

2. It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis (1935): Generally considered the best of Sinclair Lewis’s post-Nobel Prize novels, It Can’t Happen Here still lacks the canonical heft of works such as Main Street, Babbitt, and Elmer Gantry. And even these novels don’t exactly reside in the literary canon’s better neighborhoods. But It Can’t Happen Here deserves a place as one of the great political novels of the 20th century.
       In the novel, a nationalist demagogue named Buzz Windrip becomes President by appealing to nationalist sentiment and amasses dictatorial power. Many of the issues that propell Windrip to power will strike modern readers as eerily familiar, though not as ideologically consistent in 2012. Like real-life almost-dictator Huey Long, Windrip combines the redistributionist impulses of the left with the militarism and ultra-nationalism of the right—along with unhealthy doses of racism, antisemitism, and instutionalized Protestantism. The result is a plausible scenario for the 1936 election (written only the year before) in which FDR is defeated in the Democratic primary and replaced by a Homespun Hitler figure who transforms America into a fascist state.   
       Lewis wrote It Can’t Happen Here at a time when it was still possible for Americans to have a good word for Hitler and Mussolini—and for the extreme nationalism of fascist government generally. The novel’s main character—a Vermont journalist named Doremus Jessop—watches the transformation of America, first as a detached observer, and later as a victim. Throughout the novel, he listens in amazement as his fellow small-town Americans repeat, over and over, some version of the novel’s title, “it can’t happen here.”



3. All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren (1946): Interest in Warren’s classic novel of American politics has not quite faded--All the King’s Men still appears the top of most people’s lists of “Best Political Novels.” But not many people read it anymore. I was barely aware of its existence until Russell Fox steered me in its direction. Most of the good things that people say about the novel are true.
       All the King’s Men tells the story of the rise and fall of Willie Talos (renamed “Willie Stark” by Warren’s editor, and then restored to “Willie Talos” in the official 2003 reissue). Talos, the governor of an unnamed Southern state, bears a quite intentional resemblance to Louisiana’s Huey Long, who must be considered a primary subject of the book. Warren always said that the book was not about politics, but about human nature—which was kind of a joke, since he knew perfectly well that the two were the same thing.
       What strikes me the most about All the King’s Men is it’s nuanced Machiavellianism. The viewpoint character, Jackie Burden, calls Machiavelli “the founder of the modern world,” which Warren seems to accept. He does not mean the Machiavelli of myth and legend, but the very real, complex, and morally complicated political philosopher who actually wrote The Prince. Willie Talos believes in power alone, which is bad, except that he mostly does good things with it, which is good, except when he doesn’t, which is . . . . well, complicated.

4. The Devil's Advocate, by Taylor Caldwell (1952): Taylor Caldwell is the Ozymandius of 20th century Anglo-American letters. She was one of the most well-known and highest paid writers of the mid-century, she wrote more than 40 books, nearly all of them bestsellers. And today, very few people under 60 have even heard her name.
       The Devil’s Advocate is not even one of her better known novels, but it has had something of a second life among various right-wing patriot groups, who see in it something of a blueprint of how they are going to fight the war against the government. The novel centers around Andrew Durrant, a Constitutional patriot in an America that has forgotten the Constitution. He is part of a small group of “Minutemen” who infiltrate the government with the intention of making things WORSE for the people so that they will remember their liberties and throw off their oppressors.
       I read this book as a teenager, when I was reading books by Richard Bach and Ayn Rand and imagining myself to be an intellectual. And though Ms. Caldwell held many of the same views as Ms. Rand, she was a much better writer and storyteller. I would argue that she was a more powerful thinker as well. The Devil’s Advocate makes a good case against Constitutional mission creep and large-government totalitarianism; today's liberals would do well to consider it carefully. 


5. The Mouse that Roared, by Leonard Wibberly (1955):
Like many insufferable teenage geeks, I saw the Peter Sellers movie on TV and thought that that was as good as reading the book. But it wasn’t. The movie was comic genius, but the book is excellent satire, which is not the same thing.
       The Mouse that Roared tells the story of the knights of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, who (around the time of the Marshall Plan) set out to attack the United States, lose the war, and “be rehabilitated beyond our wildest dreams.” They send a small pack of longbowmen in medieval armor to New York City and manage to capture the world’s leading nuclear scientist and his new super-weapon that can destroy the entire world. With this weapon in hand, they form the “League of Small Nations” and force the world’s powers to sue for peace.
       In the process of telling this story, the Irish-American Wibberly gets his satiric hooks into all of the principal players in the Cold War: American exceptionalism, Soviet triumphalism, British colonialism, scientific detachment, and the absurdity of “arming for peace.” And it is short enough to read in a few hours. Not a bad way to pass an evening with nothing much going on.

6. Advise and Consent, by Allan Drury (1959): Though it reeks of the Cold War, Advise and Consent has a number of surprisingly modern themes. It treated Mormonism, homosexuality, and the politics of personal destruction before any of the three had an official “moment.” It was the bestselling novel of 1959, and a Pulitzer Prize winner to boot. And, for all that, it has not been in print for years.
       Advise and Consent tells the story of a controversial political nomination. A dying president names Robert Leffingwell—a well-known liberal, a professor, and a supporter of engagement with the Soviet Union—to be the new Secretary of State. A number of powerful senators immediately object, and, during the hearings, he is accused of hiding a Communist past. As the nomination plays out, Utah’s earnest Senator Brigham Anderson, who holds the nomination in his hands, is blackmailed by somebody aware of his homosexual past. Things, of course, go drastically astray.
       The most important character in the book, though, is the United States Senate itself, which Drury treats with reverence. The Senators disagree with each other, but are able to do so in a cordial way, until one senator breaks ranks with the august body and stoops to blackmail. He is the only real villain in the novel, and, once he is exorcised, the democratic process of disagreement, debate, and compromise produces a desirable result.

7. Mother Night, by Kurt Vonnegut (1961): Kurt Vonnegut’s reputation as a major American writer seems secure, but Mother Night remains one of his least read works, which baffles me, as I consider it one of his best. It is also, he has said on many occasions, the only one of his works that has a clear moral, which is this: “you are what you depend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be.”
       The hero (sort of) of Mother Night is Howard Campbell, Jr., an American writer who becomes a Nazi propagandist during World War II. Except that he isn’t really a Nazi agent, he is an American agent who uses his anti-American broadcasts as a way to get important intelligence out of Germany. But nobody knows this but the agent who runs him, and, when the war ends, everybody considers him a traitor.
       I have thought back on this work many times when I look at politicians pretending to be things to get nominated, to get elected, or to stay elected. We do tend to become what we pretend to be, so what we pretend to be is every bit as important as what we are.

8. Our Gang, by Phillip Roth (1971): Roth has written a number of brilliant political novels, such as Operation Shylock (1993) I Married a Communist (1998) and The Plot against America (2004). But none of them hit my funny bone like this gem of a book published during the first Nixon administration. Before the Watergate break- in even happened, Roth created a brilliant satire of Nixon’s essential duplicity.
       This is not really a novel. It is more like six separate satiric shorts featuring the American President Tricky Dixon (who has followed Lying B. Johnson and John F. Charisma into office). Tricky is shown giving a press conference on abortion (confronting accusations that some of the women killed in the My Lai massacre might have been pregnant, therefore making the heroic act of killing them abortions instead), working with his various advisors to find a way to prove that he has never had sex, and, in the end, going to hell and mounting a campaign against Satan.
       Our Gang was Roth’s follow-up to Portnoy’s Complaint, and it has all of the irreverent zing of the more famous novel. It got lost in the shuffle of Watergate, however, and is now read only by academic Philip Roth specialists, which is a shame, as it is a darn funny book.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Dancing with Them What Brung You: Why One Mormon Won’t Be Voting for Romney


Mr. George Milacek, who taught Psychology at Enid High School, was the closest thing that we had to a rock star. He spoke in a cartoonish voice that we all tried to imitate, and he always spoke his mind. When we asked him whether he was going to vote for Reagan or Mondale (kids, check Wikipedia on the second one), he told us exactly where he stood. “I’ve only voted for one Democrat in my life, and that was John F. Kennedy,” he announced. “People think that I voted for him because I’m a Catholic, but that’s wrong. I voted for him because he was a Catholic.”
       For years, I have wondered if I would ever have a “Milacek moment” of my own.  I am a lifelong Mor
mon from a multi-generational Mormon family. My ancestors did not walk with Brigham Young across the plains to Utah; they converted in England and met him there. But I have also spent most of my adult life voting for Democrats, and, though I would not identify myself as a liberal, I would certainly be comfortable with the label “non-conservative.” I am a confirmed centrist, and, for some time, the Democrats have been the only major party that even rents a storefront near the political center.
       But I like moderate Republicans too, when they can be found. And, from the time that he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, I have followed Mitt Romney’s career closely in a way that most Mormons (and very few others ) will understand. Seeing a powerful Mormon politician from outside of the Mountain West excited me and seemed to legitimate my faith and my heritage. Whenever I felt awkward about being a Mormon boy in the big, bad world--or when I was judged negatively by my peers--I could point to Mitt Romney and say, “there, I’m like him.”  I imagine that this is very much what Mr. Milacek felt in 1960, and, had Romney won the nomination in 2008, I might very well have allowed my tribal affiliation to trump my normal voting patterns.
       But then the Tea Party happened.
       Let me make a few disclaimers before I go on. First, I do not see the coming election as a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils. Quite the opposite, I think that we have a choice between two reasonably good candidates. I believe that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are decent, honorable men who love their country and want to serve it according to their lights and their talents. I am also not clearly attracted to Obama’s politics and repelled by Romney’s. Like most non-ideologues, I think that America is in a fiscal mess that is going to require both substantial tax increases AND deep cuts in entitlement spending, and I am frustrated that the two major parties each accept only half of that equation. But I am also encouraged that both candidates support least part of the truth as I see it. As abstract individuals, removed from their larger political contexts, the candidates appeal to me (and don't) more or less equally.
       But it's those larger political contexts that make all the difference. The recent primaries have made clear that there is no room in the Republican party for political moderation. Republicans in 2012 are, as they were in 2010, driven by an extremist ideology that is contemptuous of science, ignorant of history, and bereft of good sense. These extremists have swept away thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Bennett (UT) and Richard Lugar (IN) and replaced them with ideology-obsessed clowns. And, because they are clowns, the Tea Party faction in Congress has been willing to drive the nation to the brink of financial default before even considering the sorts of political compromises that make representative democracies work. By definition, these people cannot govern.
       I do not believe that Mitt Romney, in his soul, aligns with the Tea Party movement. If it were possible to kick them to the curb and still become a Republican president, I think he would do just that. It is not, however, possible—and that is the problem. The pressures that have forced Mitt to the right of Idi Amin are not going to disappear if he becomes President. In all likelihood, they will intensify in the House and at least remain constant in the Senate.
       If Mitt Romney becomes the President of the United States, he will owe his position to the extreme right wing of his party, and they will not go gentle into any good night. One of the few rules of modern politics is that, in the end, you got to dance with them what brung you. And whatever tribal affinity I may have for Mitt Romney—and I admit that I do have some—I cannot abide them what he will have to dance with if he makes it to the ball.

Friday, April 13, 2012

On Rush and Rosen: Both Sides Have Crazy People, but One Side Listens to them More than the Other



By now, pretty much everybody knows what Hillary Rosen thinks about Ann Romney, what Ann Romney thinks about raising children, what Barak Obama thinks about Ann Romney raising children, and what Sarah Palin thinks about grizzly bears. Less clear in all of the hubbub is whether or not there is still a Republican War on Women and whether or not Democrats have now entered said war on the side of those who hate stay-at-home-moms. Meanwhile, Americans are pretending to be disgusted by all of the “cheap partisan dialogue” that is not cheap partisan dialogue at all, but rather expensive political theater of the sort that Americans really love. Need proof? Ann Romney now has more Twitter followers than Justin Bieber.
        Republicans, especially, seem to be enjoying putting Democrats on the defensive on women’s issues for once. It has only been five weeks—and a political lifetime—since the Republicans themselves were in the awkward position of trying to defend one of their media stars for calling a pro-contraception law student a “prostitute” and suggesting that she post sex videos to the Internet.
        In a world where major news items must be limited to 140 characters, distinctions tend to get lost in the shuffle. This has produced a sort of equality-of-outrage mentality that lumps the several recent media events into a tweetable equation: Rush/Newt/Rick/Mitt/Republicans hate women and think that law students are prostitutes, but HillaryRosen/HillaryClinton/ Obama/Democrats hate stay-at-home moms—so it’s all kind of equal and we can focus on who has the best hair. This is how we play the “equality game.”
        Let us assume for a moment, however, that there really is a rough equality between March’s fiasco and April’s—that calling women who don’t work outside the home “women who don’t work” is comparable to calling women who use contraception “prostitutes.” Let us also assume that Hillary Rosen’s position in the Democratic Party is roughly comparable to Rush Limbaugh’s position in the Republican Party (i.e. both are media commentators and neither is affiliated with any particular candidate or campaign). Even if all of these factors are equivalent, the responses of the actual candidates were miles apart, and this difference tells us something crucial about the current state of our two party system.
        When news of Rosen’s faux pas broke, the Obama team moved quickly and decisively to repudiate the comment. Campaign manager Jim “No Relation” Messina took to Twitter within minutes to say that Rosen’s comments “were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.” David Axelrod, Obama Communications Director, followed up with “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.” And within a day, Obama himself went on TV and rejected both the idea that stay-at-home moms don’t work and the practice of criticizing a candidate’s spouse. Rosen could not have been more repudiated.
        And what did Governor Romney say when asked to comment on Rush Limbaugh’s patently offensive statements about women who use contraception” Here it is: “I’ll just say this, which is, it’s not the language I would have used. I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today, and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.” In other words, “Rush will be Rush.” This is not a repudiation; it is barely even not an endorsement.
        Now, I am not naïve. I maintain no illusions that Romney is a woman-hating moral coward or that Obama is a courageous idealist willing to defend SAHMs at any cost. Both men gave carefully crafted statements that reflected their respective political realities. Obama had the luxury to take the moral high ground because the far left—the sorts of people who would agree with Hillary Rosen—are not a significant political force in his party or in the general election. Romney could not repudiate a clearly irresponsible statement because a large number of the voters he is currently courting agree with Limbaugh and would be outraged by an attack on their hero. This tells us that one side is clearly more beholden to, and less willing (or able) to police, its own wack jobs. And that is a big problem.
        As someone who usually hangs out near the political center, I find the Romney response terrifying--not because of what it says about Romney per se, but because of what it says about the political context in which any Republican candidate must now operate. Are there irresponsible people on both the left and the right? Yes, absolutely. Are there people with silly, stupid, insensitive ideas on both sides? Of course. But when a liberal pundit implied that stay-at-home moms don't work, the Democratic administration immediately condemned the remark in the strongest terms possible. In a very comparable situation, the presumptive Republican nominee bent over backwards to accommodate both the offense and the offender--not because he wanted to, I will gladly concede, but because he had to. And it is the reason that he had to that scares me the most.
       In 
in the current historical moment, one of the major political parties is demonstrably more dependent on its crazy people than the other one is, and this has definite implications for how they will and do govern.
  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Tax Cuts are Magic: Why We Need the Ryan Budget




        The Ryan budget is back, and just in time. It has been so long since we have had a major tax cut that it is a near-miracle that our entire economy has not imploded. President Obama, of course, has engaged in blatant class warfare by denouncing the plan as “Social Darwinism. ” But the Republicans are holding their ground, as well they should. The most fundamental assumption of the modern conservative ideology is at stake, as well as an incontrovertible truth of theology and metaphysics: that tax cuts are magic
        That’s right. Magic. Unlike the cold rationality of the “Obama Theory”—that generating more revenue will allow us to pay for more things, including paying down the debt—the Republican model harnesses the power of magic to make government revenue grow by making absolutely sure that there is less of it. And the Ryan plan is all about magic. By slashing Pell Grants, Medicare, Food Stamps, and nearly every other service for the poorest of the poor in America, he is able to give a vanishingly insignificant tax break to most Americans, a huge tax break to those earning more than $200,000 a year, and still balance the budget despite not producing anywhere near the revenue to do so. That is why magic is so cool.


          This may sound counterintuitive, but, of course, most magic does--that's why it's magic, after all. That tax cuts have never actually produced a balanced budget—and have, in fact, always exploded the deficit—is not due to their lack of magic powers; it is because those who have gone down this road—such as Ronald Reagan in 1981—lost faith in the magic. (Reagan, you will recall, raised taxes 11 times after his initial cut).
        How far have the original Reagan tax cutters fallen away? Well, consider this little bit of Benedict Arnoldism: Reagan’s own senior economic analyst—one of the architects of the tax cuts—now claims  that increasing revenues was never even part of Reagan’s plan. “No serious Republican economist ever said that a tax reduction would recoup more than about a third of the static revenue loss,” Writes Bruce Bartlett in his Fiscal Times column. And Reagan’s tax cuts, he points out resulted in revenues that, in constant dollars “were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.”
        As we so clearly see, it is not just Democrats, but apostate Republicans who hate the magic. And make no mistake about it. Faith in the magic of tax cuts is every bit as important as faith in Jesus—because tax cuts make Jesus happy. This is stated very clearly in the Bible. In 1 Kings 12, what did God do when the evil king Rehoboam wanted to raise taxes after his father Solomon had almost bankrupted the country with his self-glorifying public works projects? He split Israel into two countries; that’s what he did. And he’ll do it again if we try to raise taxes the way that Rehoboam did.
        And this is why the tax cut issue is so important for the Republican party. It unites the faith of the two great halves of the conservative coalition: the business conservatives, who know that tax cuts are magic, and the Christian conservatives, who know that raising taxes will tick Jesus off. When Senator DeMint says that conceding anything to the democrats on taxes would destroy the GOP, he speaks with the authority of absolute truth. What could possibly be more destructive than getting on the wrong side of Magic and Jesus on the very same day.
        In a recent column on his “Capital Gains and Games” blog, Magic/Jesus hater Bruce Bartlett writes:
Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan’s plan isn’t even an act of courage; it’s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt. 
          Well Mr. Smarty-pants, RINO, traitor-to-the-Gipper guy, I’m here to tell you that you are WRONG. Its not about connecting your assumptions to some atheistic, Jesus-hating "real world" logic. Magic is not SUPPOSED to be logical. It’s about faith. It’s about religion. It’s about knowing something deep within your heart and making that special something the basis of your life. And that special something is simply this: that tax cuts are magic.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Myth of the Mainstream Media


          I am old enough to remember when the term “mainstream media” actually had semantic value. When I was growing up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, we had four TV stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS) and three national news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report). Then we had the Tulsa World and the Tulsa Tribune. And that was about it unless you took the Wall Street Journal. If these news sources tilted to the left (and, to be fair, all but the Wall Street Journal did tilt to the left), one could probably make the argument that something like a “liberal media” was influencing the way that people saw the world.
          But that world is gone forever. By the early 1990—when Internet was still mainly computer geeks talking about Star Trek and trading dirty pictures—talk radio and cable news (both of which tilted, or more, to the right) already had as many viewers/listeners as the so-called major news sources. Even during the First Gulf War it was difficult to speak of any kind of monolithic “mainstream media.” Such a media existed back then, of course, but other news sources were plentiful and easy to find. But look at what has happened since then:

          Saying the news is controlled by a “liberal elite” in 2012 makes as much sense as saying that the world economy is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers.  The three formerly major networks account for a vanishingly small percentage of the news that people actually watch. The right-leaning Fox has twice as many viewers as CNN and MSNBC combined, and more people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day than watch any major news network at all. And in 2011, for the first time in history, more people got their news from the Internet than from printed news papers.
          What this produces is what journalists often call the “echo chamber effect.”  Americans now have access to so many TV channels, web pages, blogs, radio programs, and books publishers that we don’t have to spend any time at all listening to (or reading) opinions other than our own. When we all watched the same three news shows (well, four if you count The McNeill-Lehrer News Hour, but, really, who ever watched that), we all had different opinions, but we participated in more or less the same reality. That is no longer the case. Somebody who listens to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck every day and watches nothing but Fox News does not participate in the same reality as someone who does nothing all day but read The Huffington Post and live-stream clips from The Daily Show.
          And the picture is becoming even more complicated with the rise of social media. Many people today (and I admit I am one) get most of their news from things that their friends link to on Facebook and Twitter. This has the potential to amplify the echo chamber, as most people have a self-selected group of friends who think the same way that they do. Regrettably, it is now possible to spend all of your waking hours reading about current events without ever being exposed to any views that you do not already hold. We need look no farther than this to understand the deep divisions that now paralyze our nation.
          Despite all of this, however, candidates still parade around the country inveighing against “the liberal elite” and “the mainstream media.” This is just a confirmation bias looking for a place to be confirmed. One will always be able to find thousands of examples of “liberal agendas” in the media. And conservative agendas, and moderate agendas, and, for that matter, Zoroastrian Elvis Fan agendas. But these examples do not go together to form a media conspiracy. Sure the New York Times still tilts a bit to the left. But who reads it? Rush Limbaugh has the highest radio program in the country, Fox News has the highest ratings on cable, and Mark Levin’s most recent book debuted at #1.What's a guy gotta do to be "mainstream" in this joint anyway? 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Florida


“If Trayvon was packing something heavier than skittles this world might be shorter one idiot rather  than shorter a young man with promise.”
 —Recent Facebook post discussing the murder of Trayvon Martin 



               For Thomas Hobbes, civil society was pretty much a no-brainer. However bad it might get (and Hobbes lived through some pretty bad times), it was better than the alternative, which was a worldwide and eternal version of The Hunger Games called "the state of nature." In this state, the only law that applies is brute force. Whoever can take stuff gets to keep it until someone else takes it. In the state of nature, Hobbes famously opined, the life of man (and woman) is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”         
          Fast forward from the English Revolution to February 2012, when Trayvon Martin, a young African-American man, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain with a long history of harassing people on the street. He (Zimmerman) was told by police operators not to pursue Martin, yet he did so anyway, leading to a confrontation during which Martin lost his life. Three weeks later, Zimmerman remains free, even though he admits to killing an unarmed seventeen-year-old boy, because, police say, they cannot dispute his narrative of self-defense.
          I will admit that my outrage at this event is coming late in the game. When I first heard of the incident, I was deeply saddened to hear of a young life cut short by a senseless, tragic act of violence. But I knew (or at least I thought I knew) that the man who did this would be punished. Just a few days ago, my wife and I were discussing the killing and I told her that we live in a civilized society governed by the rule of law, not in a failed state where people with guns can do whatever they want. Of course Zimmerman would be arrested and tried, I said. We haven’t gone so far down the path of gun-worship that we would stand by and allow a child to be gunned down in his own neighborhood without any consequences.
          Except that, apparently, we have. At least in Florida, and other states with “Stand-Your-Ground” legislation that makes it very difficult to prosecute anybody who claims to have been afraid. Up until now, the police have not even tried.
          Not getting arrested because of a “Stand-Your-Ground” law is a very different thing than claiming self-defense at a trial. Self-protection is a perfectly legitimate defense, and it can even be applied to mistaken situations in which somebody incorrectly believes that he or she is in danger. But it has always been an affirmative defense--one that comes with a burden of proof on the part of the one claiming it. What the Florida law appears to do (at least as it is being interpreted by the police in this case) is shift the burden of proof to the prosecution. If someone claims self-defense, then the state has to prove that the person was not acting out of a fear for his or her life. Such a shift is inconsistent with the rules of both law and logic, as it requires a dead person to prove a negative. 
         As the left becomes angrier and angrier about this miscarriage of justice, the right has become quieter and quieter, which actually surprises me quite a bit. This would be a perfect opportunity for Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to demonstrate their commitment to law and order. This would also be a fine time for the NRA to focus on the responsibility of gun ownership—to hammer home the notion that the right to bear arms conveys responsibilities that, if ignored, have consequences. I can’t even see a down side to conservatives getting behind this issue and going on record opposing the  murder of unarmed boys.
          Though I have seen very few official statements from conservatives about the Trayvon Martin incident, I have run into a distressingly large number of informal comments on blogs and social networking sites like the one that I opened with. This incident proves (say the comments) that more people should have guns. If only Trayvon had been armed, he would have been able to stand up for himself. If only all decent, law-abiding citizens carried their own weapons, then things like this wouldn’t happen.
          This reasoning leads us directly back to the Hobbesian state of nature. If everybody has to walk around carrying their own weapon, and shooting before being shot, then there is no point in having a government, for we do not live under the rule of law. If Florida cannot find a way to at least bring Mr. Zimmerman to trial (where he would be free to offer his self-defense justification to the jury) then they do not deserve to be a state, having failed in the most fundamental responsibility of the social contract.


PS.

I have signed very few petitions in my life, but I signed this one. If you agree with anything I have said in this post, please sign it too:


http://signon.org/sign/attorney-general-holder-1.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=3410758