Last week, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Israel. During their trip, all three made statements regarding the suspected covert Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons, indicating that an American military strike on Iran as a distinct possibility.
Such an attack would not only be unwise. It would be insane.
It is highly probable that Iran is, indeed, engaging in a covert nuclear weapons program, and no one can deny that Iranian nuclear capability would be a matter of grave concern both to the nations of the Persian Gulf, the United States, and the world as a whole. America should work with its allies and partners, using every diplomatic and economic means at its disposal (carrots as well as sticks) to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. But an actual military strike would lead to consequences potentially far worse than a nuclear-armed Iran.
First, there is no way of being sure that an American strike would be able to destroy Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians aren't stupid, and have doubtless studied with great interest the American air campaigns that have been waged against Iraq and Serbia in the last decade or so. Whatever nuclear facilities exist in the country are undoubtedly deep underground, dispersed over wide areas, with heavy redundancy built in. It's extremely unlikely that even the most successful air campaign would be able to destroy them all.
Second, an American attack on Iran would shatter the domestic opposition to the ruling Iranian regime and cause wavering Iranians to rally around their government. Last year, the domestic opposition within Iran came close to toppling the Iranian regime, and they are surely the best hope for those who dream of a free and democratic Iran. If America were to attack Iran, the ruling regime will be able to crush its domestic opponents by painting them as American cronies, and the reform movement's potential for ultimate success would be all but ended. The ruling Iranian regime is far more afraid of its domestic opponents than it is of the United States. If America launched a military strike, it would effectively be doing the Iranian regime a huge favor.
Third, any attack of Iran could not be limited to a mere air strike, but would immediately result in a full-scale war in the Middle East which the United State can ill afford to wage. Every Iranian missile would be fired at every American base within range, and Iranian special forces troops would doubtless be unleashed against us in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan as well. Our present military operations leave us with few available forces to deploy against Iran, and the present fiscal crisis means that we would be unable to pay for a war that would likely be far bloodier and more costly than either the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan.
Fourth, all the progress America has made in extracting itself from the Iraqi morass and in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan would immediately be thrown away. The Shia elements within Iraq would side with the Iranians, who have long been their allies and friends, and we could expect a massive uprising against American forces in response to the attack on Iran. Such a scenario would make the dark days of the Iraqi insurgency from 2004 to 2006 look like a picnic, and we could easily see thousands of American casualties within a very short time. Even worse, a direct attack on Iran would possibly make the Iranians ally themselves with the Taliban, with whom they have previously been on very dubious terms. The Taliban continue to resist American forces in Iran with surprising effectiveness; imagine how much more effective they might become if they began receiving shipments of Iranian money and weapons.
Fifth, an attack on Iran would instantly throw the global economy into a tailspin, as Iran can easily stop all oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf by blocking the Straits of Hormuz. Iran is well-equipped with self-produced Silkworm anti-ship missiles, which are easily transported and hard to find. With the ease of flipping a switch, Iran can cut the world off from one-third of its oil supply. It's not hard to imagine what this would do to oil prices around the world, or what effect it would have on already jittery global markets. Even the threat of this happening would be a disaster. Considering the still-fragile nature of the global economic recovery, such a disaster might be enough to plunge the world into an outright depression.
Sixth, such an attack would be a violation of both international law and American law. Article Two of the United Nations Charter, which was signed by President Truman and ratified by the Senate, clearly states that no state can attack another state except in clear cases of self-defense. Article Six of the Constitution makes it clear that treaties signed and ratified by the United States are part of the supreme law of the land. Therefore, an attack on Iran would be illegal. You can't just throw away international treaties, much less the Constitution itself, whenever you feel like it.
While America should not openly declare that military action is off the table, so as to lend necessary weight to our diplomatic efforts, it must be obvious to any rational person that attacking Iran would be the act of a madman. Another solution to the Iranian nuclear issue must be found.
I think it's also worth pointing out that American concern over this issue would be greatly reduced, it not made wholly unnecessary, if our nation adopted common sense energy policies that eliminated our dependence on foreign oil. If we did that, then we could simply say good riddance to the Middle East, leaving it to solve its own problems. From the standpoint of 21st Century Jeffersonianism, the less we have to do with the Middle East, the better. But that's a subject for another blog post.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Despite Its Flaws, the Financial Bill Should Be Passed by Congress
Second only to the much-debated healthcare bill that became law in March, the financial reform bill known as the Dood-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, now in the final stages of the legislative process in Washington, is the most significant piece of legislation to have appeared on the floor of Congress since President Obama took office. As with the healthcare bill, this legislation is ambiguous at best, with some excellent aspects side-by-side with deeply troubling ones. But despite its flaws, the proposed financial reform package is something that 21st Century Jeffersonians should get behind.
Thomas Jefferson deeply distrusted the centralizing tendancies of the federal government in Washington, and he worked tirelessly throughout his career to keep political power as localized as possible. But more than anything else, he feared the power of uncontrollable financial institutions, lead by Alexander Hamilton and his "stockjobbing" minions, which threatened the prosperity and the very way of life of the yeoman farmers whom Jefferson loved so well. If Jefferson could speak to us today, he would talk as much, if not more, about the threat posed by the unchecked greed of Wall Street executives as of the threat posed by an over-zealous government in Washington.
The economic crisis of the past few years, which continues to fester in the form of stubbornly high unemployment, was directly caused by the callous and cynical greed of a very few men and women on Wall Street, and it is imperative that the government take steps to ensure that such a travesty cannot happen again. 21st Century Jeffersonianism strictly believes in small government, but also maintains that it is the government's responsibility to intervene in certain cases where it is necessary to protect citizens from being exploited. In the case of Wall Street reform, this is certainly one of those cases.
As summarized by a write-up on the bill by the Los Angeles Times:
Two of the most important provisions of this bill are the limitations placed on banks in terms of their ability to invest in hedge funds and private-equity firms and the regulations against predatory and misleading financial products. These measures will help prevent citizens from being exploited by unscrupulous Hamiltonian stockjobbers, who have been making fortunes off the backs of hard-working Americans.
The provisions of the bill will expand the power of the Federal Reserve, which is far from desirable. It is an unelected institution, which was not sanctioned by the Constitution, that wields far too much influence over the American economy and, consequently, the lives of ordinary American citizens. An unlikely alliance between two members of Congress, libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) and liberal Alan Grayson (D-FL) was able to insert a provision into the bill that would initiate a one-time audit of the Fed, but while this is welcome, it is far from the ideal of having the Fed's books open to public scrutiny at all times.
This bill is nowhere near as good as it could have been. But the alternative to passing it would be to do nothing, and therefore to let the Wall Street villains continue lining their pockets at the expense of ordinary Americans. Politics is the art of the possible, and we often have to settle for less than what we want. 21st Century Jeffersonians should support the passage of this legislation, while readying themselves for more battles further down the road.
Thomas Jefferson deeply distrusted the centralizing tendancies of the federal government in Washington, and he worked tirelessly throughout his career to keep political power as localized as possible. But more than anything else, he feared the power of uncontrollable financial institutions, lead by Alexander Hamilton and his "stockjobbing" minions, which threatened the prosperity and the very way of life of the yeoman farmers whom Jefferson loved so well. If Jefferson could speak to us today, he would talk as much, if not more, about the threat posed by the unchecked greed of Wall Street executives as of the threat posed by an over-zealous government in Washington.
The economic crisis of the past few years, which continues to fester in the form of stubbornly high unemployment, was directly caused by the callous and cynical greed of a very few men and women on Wall Street, and it is imperative that the government take steps to ensure that such a travesty cannot happen again. 21st Century Jeffersonianism strictly believes in small government, but also maintains that it is the government's responsibility to intervene in certain cases where it is necessary to protect citizens from being exploited. In the case of Wall Street reform, this is certainly one of those cases.
As summarized by a write-up on the bill by the Los Angeles Times:
Its major provisions include a new council of regulators charged with protecting the financial system against large-scale threats such as the one posed by the last housing bubble; new authority for regulators to take over and dismantle financial institutions that are failing; more safeguards and transparency for financial derivatives; strict limits on how much a bank with insured deposits can invest in hedge funds and private-equity firms; and a new, independent group of regulators to protect consumers against predatory or misleading financial products.It is undeniable that the bill will expand the power of the federal government over the financial sector of the country, and as such should give 21st Century Jeffersonians pause. But the lack of legislative action will simply give Wall Street a blank slate to continue the same activities which lead to the recent economic crisis in the first place, thus presenting the disquieting possibility that a similar situation could happen again in a few years. Weighing the question in the balance, the good provisions of this bill outweigh the bad ones. An imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.
Two of the most important provisions of this bill are the limitations placed on banks in terms of their ability to invest in hedge funds and private-equity firms and the regulations against predatory and misleading financial products. These measures will help prevent citizens from being exploited by unscrupulous Hamiltonian stockjobbers, who have been making fortunes off the backs of hard-working Americans.
The provisions of the bill will expand the power of the Federal Reserve, which is far from desirable. It is an unelected institution, which was not sanctioned by the Constitution, that wields far too much influence over the American economy and, consequently, the lives of ordinary American citizens. An unlikely alliance between two members of Congress, libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) and liberal Alan Grayson (D-FL) was able to insert a provision into the bill that would initiate a one-time audit of the Fed, but while this is welcome, it is far from the ideal of having the Fed's books open to public scrutiny at all times.
This bill is nowhere near as good as it could have been. But the alternative to passing it would be to do nothing, and therefore to let the Wall Street villains continue lining their pockets at the expense of ordinary Americans. Politics is the art of the possible, and we often have to settle for less than what we want. 21st Century Jeffersonians should support the passage of this legislation, while readying themselves for more battles further down the road.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Korean Tensions Unnecessarily Endanger American Lives
On March 26, the South Korean warship Cheonan was sunk of the western coast of the Korean peninsula, almost certainly by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine. Unsurprisingly, there has since been a sharp escalation in tension between South Korea and North Korea, who have been glaring at one another across the most heavily militarized border on the planet ever since the 1953 armistice that brought an end to the Korean War. Although tensions between the two enemies are a fairly routine matter, this is undoubtedly one of the most serious flare-ups on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the war.
American military personnel have been permanently stationed in South Korea since the armistice of 1953. Presently, something like 28,000 American troops remain deployed along the Korean Demilitarized Zone, and substantial American air and naval forces are also stationed in South Korea. These are part of America's security guarantee to South Korea, and would certainly be immediately drawn into any military conflict between North and South Korea.
The question is: why are American troops there at all? As Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute pointed out in a recent article on the subject, South Korea has forty times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea. Its military is qualitatively superior to that of North Korea in every category, and if its ready reserve troops are included, fully a match in terms of numbers as well. The South Koreans are perfectly capable of defending themselves in the event of a North Korean attack without American help.
As this blog has previously stated, the United States should withdraw its military forces from South Korea. The defense of South Korea is the responsibility of the South Koreans, and it should be paid for by South Korean taxpayers. There is no more reason for American troops to defend the South Korean border than there is for South Korean border guards to patrol the Rio Grande. And considering the current fiscal crisis, the billions of dollars we would annually save by withdrawing our troops from South Korea would certainly come in handy.
Indeed, North Korea would probably be very disappointed to see the American troops leave. So long as a large force of Americans remains deployed on the Korean peninsula, they present an attractive target for North Korean nuclear weapons. This gives North orea an unacceptable amount of leverage over the United States, which North Korea has often sought to use through its cosntant brinkmanship, essentially offering to back down from threat after threat if the United States buys them off. Such an intolerable situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Some will look at the Cheonan incident and the subsequent increase in tensions and claim that they are evidence that American military forces should remain in South Korea. In fact, the opposite is the case. Indeed, the very presence of American troops probably makes an ultimate peace settlement less likely, rather than more likely. While America should always be willing to use its good offices to help resolve international disputes, putting American soldiers in situations where they might get killed in disputes that have nothing to do with the United States is not only absurd, but criminally negligent.
The Founding Fathers warned us about the dangers of permanent entanging alliances. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent end of the global Communist threat, there is no compelling reason for American troops to remain in South Korea, as North Korea does not pose any sort of threat to the United States and South Korea is fully capable of defending itself. The current tensions on the peninsula merely reinforce this point. Let's bring our people home.
American military personnel have been permanently stationed in South Korea since the armistice of 1953. Presently, something like 28,000 American troops remain deployed along the Korean Demilitarized Zone, and substantial American air and naval forces are also stationed in South Korea. These are part of America's security guarantee to South Korea, and would certainly be immediately drawn into any military conflict between North and South Korea.
The question is: why are American troops there at all? As Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute pointed out in a recent article on the subject, South Korea has forty times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea. Its military is qualitatively superior to that of North Korea in every category, and if its ready reserve troops are included, fully a match in terms of numbers as well. The South Koreans are perfectly capable of defending themselves in the event of a North Korean attack without American help.
As this blog has previously stated, the United States should withdraw its military forces from South Korea. The defense of South Korea is the responsibility of the South Koreans, and it should be paid for by South Korean taxpayers. There is no more reason for American troops to defend the South Korean border than there is for South Korean border guards to patrol the Rio Grande. And considering the current fiscal crisis, the billions of dollars we would annually save by withdrawing our troops from South Korea would certainly come in handy.
Indeed, North Korea would probably be very disappointed to see the American troops leave. So long as a large force of Americans remains deployed on the Korean peninsula, they present an attractive target for North Korean nuclear weapons. This gives North orea an unacceptable amount of leverage over the United States, which North Korea has often sought to use through its cosntant brinkmanship, essentially offering to back down from threat after threat if the United States buys them off. Such an intolerable situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Some will look at the Cheonan incident and the subsequent increase in tensions and claim that they are evidence that American military forces should remain in South Korea. In fact, the opposite is the case. Indeed, the very presence of American troops probably makes an ultimate peace settlement less likely, rather than more likely. While America should always be willing to use its good offices to help resolve international disputes, putting American soldiers in situations where they might get killed in disputes that have nothing to do with the United States is not only absurd, but criminally negligent.
The Founding Fathers warned us about the dangers of permanent entanging alliances. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent end of the global Communist threat, there is no compelling reason for American troops to remain in South Korea, as North Korea does not pose any sort of threat to the United States and South Korea is fully capable of defending itself. The current tensions on the peninsula merely reinforce this point. Let's bring our people home.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Federal Judge Rules So-Called "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional
Yesterday, in a decision sure to shake up the gay marriage debate, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The law, wich was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, defined marriage as between one man and one woman as it related to the status of married couples who receive federal benefits from programs like Social Security.
The suit had been brought by married gay couples in Massachusetts, which is one of the five states to recognize gay marriage. Because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the plantiffs claimed that the federal government, in denying them the same benefits given to other married couples, was discriminating against them based on sexual orientation. Judge Tauro, who has been on the bench in Massachusetts since he was appointed by President Nixon in 1972, ruled that it was a clear case of discrimination, and therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Interestingly, Judge Tauro also ruled that the ban was unconstitutional on the grounds of federalism, ruling that the federal law violated the rights of individual states to define marriage as they saw fit. While 21st Century Jeffersonians are strongly supportive of state's rights, this particular case may prove problematic. The right to marriage is a natural right enjoyed by all, and a state government has no more right to interfere with it than does the federal government.
All in all, this is an excellent ruling, increasing the rights of the people and rolling back the federal government's encroachment on an area where it should have no authority. 21st Century Jeffersonians can hold whatever views they please about the theological, moral, or philosophical aspects of homosexuality. But when it comes to the law and the Constitution, we believe that all citizens possess equal rights and that it's unacceptable to deny a particular group the same rights enjoyed by everyone else. We should do away with attempts to ban gay marriage for the very same reason we once did away with attempts to ban interracial marriage.
More importantly, the government has no business and no right interfering in the personal lives of its citizens. As Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, it inflicts absolutely no harm on anyone, and therefore the government has absolutely no business getting involved.
The suit had been brought by married gay couples in Massachusetts, which is one of the five states to recognize gay marriage. Because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the plantiffs claimed that the federal government, in denying them the same benefits given to other married couples, was discriminating against them based on sexual orientation. Judge Tauro, who has been on the bench in Massachusetts since he was appointed by President Nixon in 1972, ruled that it was a clear case of discrimination, and therefore a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Interestingly, Judge Tauro also ruled that the ban was unconstitutional on the grounds of federalism, ruling that the federal law violated the rights of individual states to define marriage as they saw fit. While 21st Century Jeffersonians are strongly supportive of state's rights, this particular case may prove problematic. The right to marriage is a natural right enjoyed by all, and a state government has no more right to interfere with it than does the federal government.
All in all, this is an excellent ruling, increasing the rights of the people and rolling back the federal government's encroachment on an area where it should have no authority. 21st Century Jeffersonians can hold whatever views they please about the theological, moral, or philosophical aspects of homosexuality. But when it comes to the law and the Constitution, we believe that all citizens possess equal rights and that it's unacceptable to deny a particular group the same rights enjoyed by everyone else. We should do away with attempts to ban gay marriage for the very same reason we once did away with attempts to ban interracial marriage.
More importantly, the government has no business and no right interfering in the personal lives of its citizens. As Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, it inflicts absolutely no harm on anyone, and therefore the government has absolutely no business getting involved.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Continued Threat of Terrorism Emphasizes Need for International Cooperation
News reports coming out today are revealing that a terrorist plot uncovered last year, which targeted the New York subway system, was larger than originally thought. Indeed, the plan also called for attacking targets in the United Kingdom as well as the United States. At the same time, other reports are surfacing of Al-Qaeda agents being detained in Norway, which has thus far escaped attacks by radical Islamists.
The threat of terrorism is often overblown, especially by people in the right-wing media. For all the damage and casualties they can cause, terrorists do not pose a threat to the continued survival of the American republic. The threat is certainly not sufficient to cause our nation to throw away the Bill of Rights or launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign states. But these terrorists are dangerous killers and reasonable steps need to be taken to protect ourselve from them.
The international nature of terrorism, especially loosely-organized networks like Al-Qaeda, require an international response. Only the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many nations working together can effectively prevent terrorist acts, as the recent arrests demonstrate quite clearly.
Jefferson wisely advised us to stay out of permanent entangling alliances, but he also called for working together with other nations when they were confronted by a common threat. In the 1780s, during his tenure as one of American's chief diplomats in Europe, Jefferson attempted to organize a multi-national naval force, which would warships from France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, to launch a a punitive campaign against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, who had been preying on merchant ships of many nations. Faced with the threat of international terrorism in the 21st Century, we should follow his advice and ensure a strong, unified response to terrorism, in which we act effectively with our allies.
The threat of terrorism is often overblown, especially by people in the right-wing media. For all the damage and casualties they can cause, terrorists do not pose a threat to the continued survival of the American republic. The threat is certainly not sufficient to cause our nation to throw away the Bill of Rights or launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign states. But these terrorists are dangerous killers and reasonable steps need to be taken to protect ourselve from them.
The international nature of terrorism, especially loosely-organized networks like Al-Qaeda, require an international response. Only the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of many nations working together can effectively prevent terrorist acts, as the recent arrests demonstrate quite clearly.
Jefferson wisely advised us to stay out of permanent entangling alliances, but he also called for working together with other nations when they were confronted by a common threat. In the 1780s, during his tenure as one of American's chief diplomats in Europe, Jefferson attempted to organize a multi-national naval force, which would warships from France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, to launch a a punitive campaign against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, who had been preying on merchant ships of many nations. Faced with the threat of international terrorism in the 21st Century, we should follow his advice and ensure a strong, unified response to terrorism, in which we act effectively with our allies.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
National Debt Crisis Is Not Going Away
This article in USA Today makes for some humbling reading. In spite of all the other, seemingly more immediate problems- the BP oil spill, the campaign in Afghanistan, continuing high unemployment- the massive federal deficit and the resulting gargantuan national debt continue to spiral out of the control, and this problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
President Obama's approach to the problem has so far been mostly symbolic. He has been bringing it up in his speeches more often. A few months ago, he appointed a high-profile special commission to study the debt and expects it to report back in December. In and of itself, that's fine, but it also gives the President cover to avoid taking serious measures on the problem right away. The Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on the President over the debt issue, which is also fine, but it overlooks the fact that they themselves, when in power, took a large federal budget surplus and transformed it into a massive debt. On this issue, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any credibility.
The problem will only get worse. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, the annual costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other legislatively-mandated programs is going to go through the roof, and massive cuts in spending or massive increases in taxes (or worse, both) will be necessary to meet these fiscal demands. This undeniable fact is bearing down on us like a freight train, but both Republicans and Democrats have their heads in the sand, pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
President Obama says that he wants to reduce the deficit "in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt ordinary people." This might be an admirable sentiment, but it completely misses the point. The massive deficit and debt will require a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the citizens of the country. We are going to have to go back to the ideals of Jefferson, where the federal government was simply not much of a presence in the lives of ordinary people. To the extent necessary, state and local governments will have to take over much of the role currently filled by the federal government, and many large departments of the federal government are simply going to have to be abolished, for there will simply not be enough money to run them.
But the most important fact is that ordinary people are going to have to regain the attitude of their ancestors, and restore the principle of self-sufficiency in their lives. The world is far too complex for us to go back entirely to the ways of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and one would be foolish to believe, as the modern Libertarian Party apparently does, that we can do without government altogether. But the undeniable fact is that government is going to have to be massively scaled back, and the sooner we get to grips with this fact, the better.
President Obama's approach to the problem has so far been mostly symbolic. He has been bringing it up in his speeches more often. A few months ago, he appointed a high-profile special commission to study the debt and expects it to report back in December. In and of itself, that's fine, but it also gives the President cover to avoid taking serious measures on the problem right away. The Republicans have been ramping up their attacks on the President over the debt issue, which is also fine, but it overlooks the fact that they themselves, when in power, took a large federal budget surplus and transformed it into a massive debt. On this issue, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any credibility.
The problem will only get worse. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, the annual costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other legislatively-mandated programs is going to go through the roof, and massive cuts in spending or massive increases in taxes (or worse, both) will be necessary to meet these fiscal demands. This undeniable fact is bearing down on us like a freight train, but both Republicans and Democrats have their heads in the sand, pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
President Obama says that he wants to reduce the deficit "in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt ordinary people." This might be an admirable sentiment, but it completely misses the point. The massive deficit and debt will require a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the federal government, the states, and the citizens of the country. We are going to have to go back to the ideals of Jefferson, where the federal government was simply not much of a presence in the lives of ordinary people. To the extent necessary, state and local governments will have to take over much of the role currently filled by the federal government, and many large departments of the federal government are simply going to have to be abolished, for there will simply not be enough money to run them.
But the most important fact is that ordinary people are going to have to regain the attitude of their ancestors, and restore the principle of self-sufficiency in their lives. The world is far too complex for us to go back entirely to the ways of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and one would be foolish to believe, as the modern Libertarian Party apparently does, that we can do without government altogether. But the undeniable fact is that government is going to have to be massively scaled back, and the sooner we get to grips with this fact, the better.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Elena Kagan Confirmation Hearings Should Focus on Constitutional Issues, Not Scoring Political Points
The Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings this week for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Obama to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court created by the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. Filling vacancies to the Supreme Court is one of the most influential acts a President can take, and the duty of the Senate to accept or reject their nominations is not something that should be taken lightly.
Unfortunately, if the present evidence is any indication, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are more likely going to focus on scoring political points and making headlines for themselves than properly investigating Ms. Kagan's genuine fitness for the position. So far, the statements by Republicans seem fixated only her actions related to military recruiters when she was dean of the Harvard School of Law, as opposed to any of her positions on constitutional issues.
The questions the Senators should be prepared to ask in these hearings should focus on Ms. Kagan's positions regarding such matters as the separation of church and state, federalism, the extent of executive power, the extent to which the 4th Amendment protects the privacy of citizens, whether or not the First Amendment covers campaign donations in addition to speech and writings, and so forth.
Sadly, we're likelyto see little or none of this. What we are likely to see is the Democratic half of the committee telling her how great she is and defending her from Republican attacks, while the Republican half of the committee dig up meritless criticisms for the sake of the television cameras, being intent more on embarrasing President Obama than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do. If there is going to be an exception to this otherwise dismal rule, it will probably be Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often is the sole member of the Judiciary Committee who seems intent on actually doing his job rather than toeing the party line.
For all I know, Ms. Kagan could turn out to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But if the recent past is any indication, her confirmation hearings are going to be nothing more than a session of partisan bickering and a demonstration of everything that is currently wrong with representative goverment in America.
Unfortunately, if the present evidence is any indication, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are more likely going to focus on scoring political points and making headlines for themselves than properly investigating Ms. Kagan's genuine fitness for the position. So far, the statements by Republicans seem fixated only her actions related to military recruiters when she was dean of the Harvard School of Law, as opposed to any of her positions on constitutional issues.
The questions the Senators should be prepared to ask in these hearings should focus on Ms. Kagan's positions regarding such matters as the separation of church and state, federalism, the extent of executive power, the extent to which the 4th Amendment protects the privacy of citizens, whether or not the First Amendment covers campaign donations in addition to speech and writings, and so forth.
Sadly, we're likelyto see little or none of this. What we are likely to see is the Democratic half of the committee telling her how great she is and defending her from Republican attacks, while the Republican half of the committee dig up meritless criticisms for the sake of the television cameras, being intent more on embarrasing President Obama than doing the job they were sent to Washington to do. If there is going to be an exception to this otherwise dismal rule, it will probably be Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who often is the sole member of the Judiciary Committee who seems intent on actually doing his job rather than toeing the party line.
For all I know, Ms. Kagan could turn out to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But if the recent past is any indication, her confirmation hearings are going to be nothing more than a session of partisan bickering and a demonstration of everything that is currently wrong with representative goverment in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
