I hope Trump fails.
I know it's the popular, banal wisdom of the masses to say that they hope, despite everything, that he turns out to be a good President.
Some of these people say that it's too early to tell and we should just give him a chance, that maybe he'll surprise us.
Some of these people say that they don't want the ills of a failed presidency to be borne by the people.
Some of these people say that it's for patriotic reasons, that they don't want to root against America, regardless of who her leader is.
Most of these people are inclined to regurgitate any weak-hearted, feeble-minded ecumenical bullshit that neatly dodges any responsibility, accountability, or critical thought.
Not I.
First, let's be perfectly clear. Donald Trump is not going to be a good President. The people who elected Donald Trump do not want a good President. Nothing Donald Trump has said or done has given the slightest indication to the contrary. If your plan is to just give him a chance and hope for the best, instead of getting a passport and moving your investments overseas, then you're well behind the curve already and his administration is going to hit you like a gold-plated slab of marble.
These low expectations are, in large part, what propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP ticket in 2016. Every other candidate from both major parties was compared against a Presidential standard. If Trump, however, could make it an hour without using a racial slur or literally throwing his feces at his opponents, he was considered to have "done well" in the debates.
And that's the problem, here.
Nobody expects Donald Trump to be a good President. Nobody voted for him because he is Presidential. They voted for him, to borrow a metaphor, as a Molotov cocktail thrown through the window of the establishment. He will not surprise anyone except by virtue of the increasing obscenity of each successive scandal.
Because Donald Trump is a punishment, his administration is not going to be held up to a standard fitting the leadership of one of the world's most powerful and influential nations. The standard for a "successful" Donald Trump presidency is much, much lower: If there is still a country in four years, the conservative idiots on Breitbart and company will decry "liberal doomsaying" as "overblown", and we can fully expect Americans to shrug and pull the lever for four more years.
Anything better than an absolute disaster is not a success. Yet this is the handicap Donald Trump plays with.
Trump's policies are going to gut our industry, the dollar, our education, our health, our foreign standing, and our alliances, and he is guaranteed two years in which to work basically unobstructed. If this plan is fully enacted, America will lose her superpower status by the end and, given what the state of our workers and our education will be, it may be generations before we can dream of recovering it. NATO, the EU and possibly even the UN will be on their way to joining the League of Nations in the history books. America's enemies will be strengthened and emboldened by the decline of American and western power. We will be baited, by virtue of our thin-skinned and short-tempered and myopic Commander in Chief into unwinnable and unpopular conflicts across the globe. Trump and his cronies will walk away richer, the office of President will be forever disgraced, and the people of America will be greatly impoverished in nearly every way.
The real kicker is that these policies are going to hurt worst those people in the areas that voted overwhelmingly for Trump - which is to say, that there is only justice in the world if Trump does what any thinking person expects him to attempt.
This is the essential accountability to which the American voter must be held. As the rural south and the blue collar rust belt suffer disproportionately to the modest discomforts experienced by the liberal urban strongholds, the mantra must be "You asked for this. You wanted punishment." This must be internalized by the voters because it was the apathy of the voters that led to the failure of our institutions which installed this incompetent, unqualified, puppet of a leader. If we are to impress upon Americans the importance of voting and voting well, it is essential that Americans feel the full impact of their decision to vote out of spite, or out of ignorance, or with their gut, or to not vote at all.
The Constitution, the Electoral College, and the Congress which all contain measures to prevent people like Trump from achieving office failed, and these are deep flaws which must be corrected. They would not have had the opportunity to fail, however, had the voters themselves not failed in their civic duties.
Simply put, if you are throwing support behind Trump in the name of "unity" and "patriotism" you are mistaken. You cannot be both for the strength, security and welfare of this nation and your fellow citizens, and be for what Trump advances. There is no patriotism in hoping for a Trump success.
And so, in order to avoid eight years of the incredible and possibly irreversible damage even partial success will create, America needs a wake-up call. She needs the worst two years in living memory to get voters to remove the GOP from the legislature and thereby muzzle Trump. Given the high likelihood of outright, flagrant criminal activity from this administration, we must be prepared for the anguish of an impeachment.
Trump must fail. It is not unpatriotic to root against him, it is not unjust to expect the people to bear the weight of this failure, and it is not unrealistic to expect that he will fail though he has been President less than a day.
Trump's failure is the penance that must be paid to preserve this nation and her place in the world.
Friday, January 20, 2017
The Unexpected Virtue of Punishment
Sunday, November 23, 2014
On riding the Congressional Red Wave
I'm not entirely hostile to the Republican Party, though for all that I malign democracy, the Democratic Party promotes a platform to which I am more sympathetic. This is due to two factors: First, I am an advocate for active social change rather than passive, laissez-faire methods. Second, I am actively opposed to religion and theocracy in all its forms and as such the coalition between the Republican Party and the politicized Christianity in America make it impossible for me to support any high-profile Republican in any capacity whatsoever.
So it should come as little surprise that I am less than pleased with the results of the midterm elections. It may be simple, stupid optimism, but I don't think that these results necessarily forebode a swing back towards the right wing in the 2016 presidential season. The next two years will constitute a trial period for the Republican Party, and the performance of Congress during this trial will have considerable impact on that election.
There are a few things that are going to influence this:
1)
Repeal of the ACA - This could go either way. The Republicans have been
after this since before it even passed, and so it is now one of the
"big ticket" items on their agenda. This is something that will be used
as a benchmark of their success, like getting out of Iraq and closing
Guantanamo have been for Obama.
These
benchmarks, of course, have very little to do with any actual
effectiveness or competency, but because of their high profile and
binary nature they are easy for voters to understand and rally behind.
For this reason, the GOP essentially must pursue repeal of the ACA,
despite what Mitch McConnell has promised in post-election interviews.
To fail to do so is, in the mind of the voter, a failure of the GOP. The
Republicans may expect that they can spin it as their efforts being
blocked by the Democrats, but that spin is unlikely to
hold up while they hold a majority. If it does, then the repeal of ACA gets to be a talking point
for their next Presidential candidate. It's a tough tradeoff to measure.
Obviously,
the greatest contributors to the enrollment numbers are the poor, who have seen an overall 9% decrease in uninsured people under the ACA. The
kicker is that a higher percentage of Republicans gained insurance under
the ACA than Democrats, so by repealing it Republicans will be hurting
their own constituents, such as those in historically poor and republican areas such as Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi; and the
deep south remains the most uninsured part of America.
 |
| Image Source: The New York Times |
On the other side of the coin, young people (18-34), Hispanics, Blacks, and women all had significantly greater levels of enrollment than old white men. These are groups which tend to vote Democrat, and so will be fighting to keep the ACA on the books in two years' time.
2) Filibusters and Shutdowns - Unfortunately, the filibuster is a fact of life in Congress now - the commonly cited figure is that 70% of all bills before the Congress will be filibustered and only 2-3% of them will ultimately pass. The desirability of that latter point is a debate outside the scope of this discussion; it does, however, give an indication of the ability of our Congress to actually accomplish anything. As an organization tasked with running the nation and fixing its problems, a 2-3% implementation rate is eyebrow raising to say the least.
Abuse of this procedural artifact has been brought to light recently but it will make no real difference in the perception of either party. I assess that the minority party - which is the one with the most to gain from a filibuster - will suffer slightly more blame; on the other hand the mechanism is now identified in the public consciousness as a Republican strategy. At best, it comes out as a wash.
Speaking of Republican strategy, however, leads us into something which explicitly IS a Republican strategy: Holding the nation hostage via the Government Shutdown.
The shutdowns in recent years reflected extremely poorly on the Republicans, as the nation overwhelmingly (and rightly) viewed the loss of services as a dangerous and irresponsible act of political brinksmanship, rather than - as the GOP had hoped - as the inevitable results of a failure of the reigning Democrats to negotiate.
The voter has a short memory, as it turns out, and they decided that the solution was more Republicans. During the campaign season, Sen. Mitch McConnell threatened to use government shutdowns as a strongarm method to get their way. He quickly waffled on that point - presumably after an aide showed him the polls from the last shutdown - and has vowed "no shutdown, no repeal [of the ACA]" in the post-election interviews. At least one of those points is disingenuous, and the fact remains that the cat is out of the bag now. Congressional Republicans - who have to deal with not only Democrats, but the rogue and extremist Tea Party members - have historically demonstrated their willingness to shut the government down and it remains a threat that they can continue to employ. If the extremist elements within the GOP do not fall in line, the fallout from even the threat of a shutdown will reflect very poorly on a Republican Congress, who will be seen not only as disruptive as ever, but also as unable to control a congress in which they hold a majority.
Therefore, filibusters and shutdowns will inevitably end poorly for the Republicans in 2016, forcing them to take a less rigid, more ecumenical position in order to market themselves as a party that can solve problems.
3) Vetoes - There is really not much relevant data on veto-heavy terms. The Reconstruction era Presidency of Andrew Johnson, while culminating in an impeachment attempt, is not analogous because Congress had the votes to override a veto.
I expect, however, that a high number of vetoes is likely to go in favor of the GOP. Americans prefer an ecumenical government and the veto counteracts this idea in two ways.
First, it has the President throwing out the orders of our democratically elected Congress. Despite being democratically elected himself, there is simply no way to avoid the spin on this.
Second, while the Republicans hold a majority in Congress, they lack the supermajority necessary to override a veto. Once again, rather than being seen as the essence of republicanism in action, where our representatives have a balance of power which prevents a runaway Congress, this will be spun as a Democrat minority exercising a disruptive power to prevent the "will of the people". By passing laws that they expect to be vetoed, especially with the congressional tendency to attach emotionally charged titles to bills, the GOP can counteract at least some of the bad press from the above point by casting the democrats in an uncooperative and heartless light.
Expect the number of idiotic bills with emotional names and causes to increase as the election season picks up. The Republicans may also, in the spirit of Congress under Andrew Johnson, use a series of vetoes to pursue their OTHER high profile key agenda item: Impeachment of the President.
4) Impeachment of the President - This is the "Big Ticket" which the GOP has been pursuing for six years for no reason whatsoever. Mitch McConnell made assurances that his Congress would not shut down the government and that they would not fully repeal the ACA, but the impeachment of President Obama is still on the table.
This is a losing move for the Republicans and I hope they make it.
As above, they must pursue this point as a matter of public perception. Unlike with the ACA, however, there is a time limit. They cannot let this sit idle until they are in a better position to move - they must act in less than two years or they have failed.
Contrary to GOP hysteria, Obama has not committed any "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and therefore is not subject to impeachment - or to be more precise, there is nothing to convict the President of in the event that impeachment proceeds to a trial before the Senate. Impeachment proceedings are a high profile case which would force the issue - Republicans would have to present their evidence and have it weighed. The failure of their case will be a high profile stain on years of campaigning, and the distraction of the case from other matters of national import will become a burden on the GOP for pursuing a petty political agenda at their expense.
Ultimately, I expect that it is safer for the Republicans to avoid the issue of impeachment overall so that they may maintain their theatrics, rather than suffer the much worse failure to convict the President. This puts them in a bind: as I've repeatedly said throughout this post, they must pursue impeachment now that they have a majority and the must do it within a set time limit.
It is possible that the GOP expects the payoff for repealing the ACA to be higher than that of even a half successful impeachment. Repeal of the ACA is high profile and the fallout from its removal lacks the immediacy necessary for the voters to attribute the cause of their ire appropriately. Should this be the case, it works against the Democrats in 2016 as well. Candidates can proudly say that they supported and defended the ACA should it survive a Republican assault; on the other hand, failure of the GOP to impeach the President is not something which a Democratic candidate can mention without tying together the ideas of impeachment and the Democratic administration.
Ultimately, I don't expect either plan to come to fruition, but the GOP is likely to stage a big show of assaulting the ACA while letting their plans for impeachment fall by the wayside. This will give them contentious and ideologically charged fodder to ride in the 2016 presidential season. What remains is whether or not two years of a Republican Congress will convince the swing voters that the GOP is reactionary and dangerous, or if it will convince them that the GOP needs more rope to pursue its agenda.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
My Final Correspondence with the Libertarian Party
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Aborting Jesus
In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt makes one of the most controversial claims I've ever seen: that legal and accessible abortion makes a better world. The data makes a compelling argument and if you would like to examine it and his arguments I urge you to pick up a copy of his incredibly interesting book.
The pro-life contingent is fond of asking "What if the baby was the cure for cancer?" or other such inane questions. It is inane because any problem has a solution which may be derived by anyone with the proper intelligence. New problems, on the other hand ...well, let's just say that the drop in crime rates observed two decades after Roe v. Wade wasn't attributable to the "cure for crime" being allowed to come to term.
Jesus is a great example of just such a situation. Imagine how much better the world might be if Joseph had done what he was supposed to do? (Hint: Deuteronomy 22:20-21; Numbers 5:11-31) There would be only one basic cult of Jehovah on the planet. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Sharia ...and likewise, the reactions to those forces: communism, the French Reign of Terror, the Holocaust, Pogroms. Lesser banes like Intelligent Design would also be absent from the world today.
In the void left by Jesus' absence there would be new atrocities, for sure. Humans are atrocious, and religions are made by humans. But what if three quarters of the world's population wasn't all devoting their bloodshed to the same God, whose cults have written into their texts the world's most reassuring excuses for horror yet devised? Mind that even the religious wars in Hindu and Buddhist areas in the modern day are fought against one sect of the cult of Jehova.
Perhaps this is the key to Christopher Hitchens' note of the correlation between Women's Rights (and reproductive freedom) and the quality of life and freedom of an area. Perhaps the causal relationship is not only direct; but it is as Hitchens suggest, that women's rights and reproductive freedom create conditions for a better world.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Thin Blue Lifeline.
I saw one of those uplifting, good news type stories in my news feed today:
 |
| Police officer picks up tab for the groceries a desperate mother tried to STEAL to feed her struggling family |
I re-shared it for a couple reasons.
First, it's awfully popular to hate on the police. I understand that what they do is often unpopular, and very few of us ever have or take the opportunity to have a pleasant encounter with the thin blue line. In a larger sense, this is true of everything we do. We can be model employees, but a single fuckup is what our bosses will tend to remember. So it is important that we take time to remember that these individuals have taken a job that they know is unpopular, that doesn't pay well, and is dangerous, almost universally out of a sense of service. It is also important to remember that most of them retain that sense of service and community; and to remind ourselves in positive ways why it is that such a profession exists. The watchman doesn't just repel dangers, but checks in to ensure our well being. Which leads to my second reason:
This is exactly what the police ought to do.
I'm not saying buy groceries for folk, that was an act of charity above and beyond the duties of an officer. But it is an indicator of how the officer ought to view their role and act within that role, and that role is as a member of the community.
I've heard people wax nostalgic about the days when the cops that walked a beat in your neighborhood knew your name. I am wary of nostalgia, but this is a worthwhile goal. It fosters a sense of connection between the officers and their charges. It enhances community appreciation of the police. It means that there are enough police to have them walking about and knowing their areas and the people within them.
I'm writing about this news item here for a third reason. A while ago I opined on nullification, and made the point that while the police ought not to have de jure powers of nullification, the realities of law enforcement give them such powers de facto. This good news story is an example of this de facto nullification: the law requires that the woman, a thief, should be arrested and punished; in most cases the law is perfectly logical and therefore should remain standing. However, the officer took the time to consider the situation and chose not to enforce the law, because in this specific situation the effect of doing so would have been beyond negative. This officer, rather than act without imagination, did the right thing without the waste of time, money, and paper that would go into legislating every conceivable exception that can or ought to be made to the law.
Friday, April 1, 2011
We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone (and TSA Agents)
Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet. The following comments are in reply to the support a certain establishment had garnered with its refusal to serve TSA Agents.
"If policy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?"
Granted, my condition is quite a bit different than that of a TSA agent, but as a soldier, the answer is "Yes". You can't refuse a dangerous order or a lawful order, and the kicker... is that the definition of "lawful" is up to a military tribunal. I repeat, it's a different situation, but it does render your argument somewhat invalid.
"no one is forcing the tsa agent to grope me before i get on an airplane"
Yes they are. It's their job vs. your comfort. In the same situation, I know what I'd pick. Similarly, do you have any idea what would happen to the TSA agent who lets a bomb through because s/he was squeamish about a pat down? The public, once so adamantly against the screenings, would then be calling for strict enforcement of the rule and the immediate, severe and preferably public castigation of the negligent agent. It's a Catch-22, and one that puts severe pressure on the agents. You act as though they have a choice, when really, they do not.
"harming people even though you know its unethical for a paycheck"
"Harming" is hyperbole and you know it. As for the paycheck, you are certainly aware that there is a recession on. It's not just that "this job is as good as any other", it's that if they don't have this job, it is extremely likely that they won't have ANY. In case you ain't noticed, we're not talking about highly trained and educated people when we talk about TSA. And when I walk into a Waffle House and get served by a waitress trainee who used to be a realtor, as I did this last December in Tucson, you begin to realize that when it comes to a roof over your head and food in your stomach, and the same for your family, you don't get to be choosy about your employment anymore. These folks are NOT going to put their jobs at risk for some mouthy stranger who knew what was likely to happen and decided to fly anyway. Especially when it won't accomplish anything, since the instant they walk out the door there will be ten people clamoring to replace them. Ten people who will either do their jobs or likewise get canned until TSA finds someone who will.
So is it really such a pain to get a little felt up? Ask yourself honestly. TSA's job is certainly important, if a little overinflated, and the "groping" is less invasive as a rule than a trip to the doctor, the locker room at the gym, or one of those men's restrooms with a trough urinal. The same search is performed by police officers regularly and people take it as a matter of course.
Consider it from another viewpoint: Let's say you have a job towing cars. Your bread and butter is impounding cars parked by red curbs, across two parking spaces, or in private lots. It's not a pleasant job, because every single time you take a car in, it means you probably have to deal with that car's owner later on. An owner which, by the way, is now having a bad day thanks in no small part to people like you.
You do your job because it's a paycheck. You went to school to learn acupuncture, but in this economy there's no work because people don't have money to waste on medicine that doesn't work. But you do your job honestly, by the book, and you try to make the process as painless for everyone involved as you can, because you understand: getting your car towed sucks. But its a part of life, and you don't make the laws.
At the end of one day you walk into a bar, still wearing your coveralls, and the barkeep has you shown out. "We don't serve your kind here," the bouncer sneers, "We don't appreciate what you do." You try to protest, but they'll hear none of it. "You didn't have to take that job, and you don't have to do that work. You're just as evil as the gummint that says I can't double park across the handicapped spaces. And I'll hear none of that Nazi talk about orders" he concludes as the door slams coldly in your face.
The barkeep doesn't know about your mortgage, your car payment, and your three kids. Apparently he doesn't understand that if your boss didn't send you out on these City jobs he wouldn't have enough revenue to run the business. More than that, he and his bouncer simply don't care. You slink away across the cold, dark parking lot and drive home, rejected, ostracised, alone, and dead sober.
From what you know about human nature, how do you think you would react when, early the next week, you respond to a call requesting that you tow a car carelessly sprawled between a red curb and an expired parking meter. As you are filling out some forms, preparing to leave, a flustered looking man comes running out, yelling the usual obscentities you almost always hear from the owners of towed vehicles coming across you in the commission of your duties. As the red-faced man's visage resolves, you slowly recognize him as the bartender. That mean bartender who cares not a jot or tittle for you as a human because you took a job he doesn't like. That jerk who doesn't understand the demands of having a house and a family, who doesn't even care to understand what it is to be bound to something beyond yourself. Look at him, screaming and flailing his arms, knowing full well what conversations will ensue, here, and later at the impound lot, and ask yourself, "Do I have any sympathy and mercy for this man? I know that my job visits unpleasantness upon people, but does this man deserve my cooperation and professional insight and aid? Will I, perhaps, cut him a deal so he can get his car home just a little faster or cheaper, at a detriment to my boss but at a benefit to overall goodwill? Or will I make his life just a little more difficult in kind?"
THAT'S why refusing to serve TSA agents is a bad idea.
The following comment was made later in the conversation.
"i also cant agree with the economic argument. so if the economy is... strong and opportunity is rampant, than its ok to oppose unethical behavior in the name of a paycheck?"
That's not the argument we're making. It's that things aren't all... black and white, and sometimes you actually DO have to weigh one evil against another. When the choice comes down to the wellbeing of my family and the comfort of strangers, then you can't really hold it against people for making certain decisions. When the economy improves and people are again able to choose their employment, then the paradigm will have changed.
In any case, I'm glad most of us are agreed that punishing the workers is not the way to be creating the changes we want. If anything, we should be finding ways to get TSA agents on our side.
It reminds me of my experience at MEPS (er ...don't know how many vets are here. That's "Military Entrance Processing Station") which is a generally unpleasant experience for everyone involved. I felt especially sorry for the doctors there, whose jobs, despite a decade of medical school, consisted of checking an endless parade of men for hernias and hemorhoids. I figure that the folks at TSA aren't (as a rule) much happier about having to look at the Backscatter Images or feel people up. Especially when you think back on all the times you've flown and the truly, um, "aesthetically unfortunate" people that are on every flight. I think that a sympathetic rather than hostile approach would be more fruitful.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Jurors and Law Enforcement
Another short essay collected from my exploits on the World Wide Web, this time on the topic of whether or not the Police should be given the same powers of nullification granted to jurors.
I think that denying the police such license, which by corollary binds them to strict enforcement of the law, is in fact a desireable thing.
Our current legal system is constructed in such a way that we enjoy a number of very important boons.
First, there exist limits placed on the exercise of government. Namely, that all government, from the Fed all the way down to Buttsex, Kansas City Council are bound to conduct themselves in a constitutional manner. (Nevermind whether it actually happens 100% of the time, that's a different discussion)
Second, what laws are passed that are not delineated in the constitution are passed either by the citizens or their proxies; hence the designation of the United States as a Republic, as we all remember (or at least, ought to remember) from our civics classes.
Third, there are limits that apply to the powers held by the citizens and their proxies; these limits prevent mob rule from overriding basic rights or in certain cases using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. As Justice Walker opined in his ruling on California's Proposition 8 last August:
"The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives." It is within this construction that I frame my arguments. Less enlightened or fair systems suffer their own flaws which do not necessarily find their solutions in my argument, yada yada keep it in context =)
Our legal system is not perfect and has, at various times, been unfair to various peoples for various reasons. What it does offer, however, is a methodology whereby both the power-hunger of the leaders and the fanatical fear/greed of the populace are held in check. If we hold that such irrational or frankly malicious desires being held in check is a good thing, then it follows that nullification should not be the purview of police officers.
I will further argue that even if nullification is not granted, then to an extent it still is granted, nonetheless. This isn't a contradiction, it is just a juxtaposition of the legal/pragmatic reality vs. the real-reality, if that makes any sense. I'm getting ahead of myself, more on that later.
The idea of the police having powers of nullification is demonstrably different from jurors having that same ability. A police officer is one man; a jury is twelve. A crime is an act in progress, a constantly evolving scenario; a trial is a presentation of evidence on the past - understood to be immutable; a police officer is charged with the enforcement of the law; a jury is charged with its interpretation. From these differences, we derive that a jury nullification is built from a consensus of the citizenry, who are themselves a sort of representation of that same citizenry in much the same manner as a legislator. They are hearing facts and evidence and weighing the merits of a person, of a case, of a law and of a sentence and as such their opinion is neither the subject of whim nor of subjectivity.
Further, the decision of the jury is subject to review by additional courts and, often, additional juries. Appeal is a luxury of the courts that an officer does not have.
When such broad powers are granted to lone individuals, as police officers are, subjectivity once again becomes a factor. The case for nullification is easy to make when the law in question is possesion of a dime bag of marijuana. But that sword cuts both ways: what about the officer who opposes CA Prop 215 (which are plethora in my home county), or the officer who opposes the Civil Rights Act or any number of other liberty granting legislation?
What about laws regarding what weapons it is appropriate for an officer to carry; or when it is appropriate for an officer to use them?
By handing the power of nullification to single people, as you would be doing with police officers, you would, in reality, create tiny little dictatorships along every beat subject to whatever the whims and fancies of your local officer on that shift might be. And while some of us would be blessed enough to have our own local Tony Ryan, at least as many would be under the whip of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
If the power of nullification extends to individual precincts or departments, but not to individual officers, then you have simply created - or if not created, certainly augmented - a special interest group whose interests and powers would readily exceed those of the citizenry who are supposed to constitute their charges and employers. Bills that would increase or decrease their workloads (e.g. criminalizing or decriminalizing various activities) would be subject to their approval; as would budgeting and hiring.
It is in our best interests to have the officers bound to the laws as we, the citizenry, pass and interpret them. In such a manner, we have power over the exercise of force used in enforcing them.
I mentioned in my brief digression above that nullification would exist anyway, and here is what I mean: As it stands, many officers will overlook certain crimes in favor of enforcing more important ones anyway. Few officers will harrass a couple of teenagers breaking curfew when a bar brawl breaks out. This sort of prioritizing is a matter of course with police; the upside is that, should an officer take undue liberties with his judgement there is recourse for any negligence.
Friday, August 13, 2010
A Short Proclamation of Approval
Circumstances prevented my earlier and more timely commentary on recent events. However, I feel that in light of such a momentous occassion, I cannot but register my overwhelming approval of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8. In addition, he has removed a stay which would have prevented his ruling from taking immediate effect and equality will be restored on August 18, 2010.
There is much to say on the subject, touching on such myriad subjects as the obvious equality and discrimination, to more obscure but nonetheless relevant topics as democracy and social inertia. It would be more fitting to address these in depth at another time and in another post.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Contempt of Congress
Congress today voted to approve a measure which would extend unemployment benefits to those whose benefits ran out at the six-month mark. The vote was conducted after the swearing in of Senator Carte Goodwin, who cast a vote which broke a "Republican Filibuster" and sent the bill on its merry way.
Those of you who read a previous blog post will know the distaste I have for the manner in which Congress conducts itself, and it is with the new information provided by this most recent abuse of power that allows me to put a finger on what, exactly, disturbs me.
Think back to, say, elementary school. You and ten other students get together on the playground and try to decide what you want to play.
"Hide and Seek!" you shout immediately.
"Red Rover!" another student shouts almost as quickly.
Debate ensues as to which option is more appealing. Being young, the idea of dividing into two groups never occurs to you, or if it did, the idea of a game consisting of only 5 people sounds like no fun. Finally, one student says those fateful words.
"OK, let's vote on it."
The votes come down: five for Hide and Seek, six for Red Rover. Your suggestion was defeated and the group will play Red Rover. This is the nature of the democratic process: A group of people resort to the will of the majority to decide an issue and - and this is truly the most important part of the process - these people agree to be bound by the results of the vote, whether they like the result or not.
A Republic, such as what exists in America, is an interesting twist on Democracy. As a straight Democracy becomes increasingly cumbersome the more people are involved, the people vote democratically on certain, but not all, issues. For the remainder - often, the bulk - of the issues, they select representatives (democratically, of course) who take on the daily business of government and make decisions amongst themselves on behalf of their constituents via the democratic process.
In short, a Republic is a system of government whereby the people engage vicariously in pure Democracy.
Let's return to the playground. In an ideal world populated by honest, mature, and just people, you would accept the outcome of the vote and get on with the game. But what if you refused to accept the outcome, and not only that, but you got your fellow students to vote again and again, until circumstances changed - you bring in other students to vote your way, or players who voted against you leave, or you just bully people into changing their votes - such that you finally got your way? Would that be democracy, or would that be something else entirely?
As it so happens, this latter behavior is the manner in which Congress conducts itself with disgusting regularity. It seems that (through abuses of the rules which govern procedure, which I will discuss topically later in this essay) the Pass/Fail vote which is the hallmark of a real democracy has been usurped by a Pass/Filibuster system. The key difference between the two is that after a vote is taken in a true democracy, the issue is settled. In the latter system, a motion only fails to pass for now.
If a Republic is a government in which those selected to attend to the business of the government conduct themselves democratically, then what else can you call the refusal to be bound by democratically achieved results than a perversion and a failure?
As I said before, the most important detail of this system is not so much the process itself, but the understanding that the participants agree to be bound by the process. In most representative governments, the process is codified well beyond "we vote on stuff". Several such systems of rules exist and are commonly referred to as "Parliamentary Procedure" and they exist in order to organize and expedite efficient discussion and voting. Rules are crafted to determine who may speak, what may be discussed at a given time, what gets voted on when, and numerous other instances which require consistent procedure in order for discussion and the process to be deemed fair.
It is also common within democratically derived systems to set certain rules upon the voting itself. For instance: it is generally understood, but in some cases need be stated explicitly, that a single person may cast a single vote. In a case where a single person may cast multiple votes, information such as how many votes a person may cast and how they may cast them must be delineated. Some rules apply to determining an outcome - certain issues, such as amending the Constitution, are deemed too important to be left to the whims of a simple majority and must be approved by "supermajorities" of two-thirds and sometimes three-quarters of the vote.
In these systems a motion may be made, discussed, and amended; other motions may be substituted; and any or all of these may be tabled, denied consideration, or voted upon. What they have in common is that, once a motion is voted upon, the issue is settled, yea or nay, good or ill. The question cannot be raised again unless significant new developments occur, a pre-determined length of time passes (usually requiring a new term of office or a new session to begin), or the motion changes substantially.
No parliamentary authority recognizes the addition of pork as a "substantial change" unless the subject being discussed is Lunch.
One of the principal difficulties of these parliamentary systems (principal, as anyone who has spent any time in a board room or convention can surely describe the many subtle and nuanced failings of whichever system they experienced) is that the more rules are in place, the greater the opportunity for abuse. These rules are in place to move discussion along, to keep it organized, and to assist in keeping track of what is being voted upon and what happens when it passes or fails. Societies who implement parliamentary procedure are often fond of saying the rules are "intended as a loose-fitting blazer, not as a straitjacket." And while this sentiment is certainly true of the authors' intentions, the "spirit of the law" is often usurped by the "letter of the law" and we find ourselves watching Congress.
The current congressional paradigm of Pass or Filibuster means that there is not a single hare-brained piece of malevolence that can be moved and seconded in those halls that will ever disappear. If it fails to pass on a vote, rather than being eliminated until a better (or at least different) idea comes along, it sits dormant, a victim of "filibustering" until somebody retires, dies, or forgets to show up to a session and the vote can finally swing the other way. Any measure with a chance of passing greater than zero will, given enough time under a "filibuster", be passed and inflicted upon America.
The recent passing of the unemployment measure may have been done technically within the bounds of the parliamentary authority but the manner in which this task was completed was not only contrary to spirit of democracy and the parliamentary authority, but shows open contempt for the fair, open, and enlightened intentions of the processes.
For those of you who doubt me, there is a footnote worthy piece of information: the next step in the process of implementing the measure which inspired todays blog is for the Senate to choose whether to incur more national debt, or to cut funding from other government programs in order to finance their decision.
How fortunate for us.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Responsibility and Restraint - The Good Way
In the news recently, Obama's health care nightmare has cleared a major hurdle by gaining a Republican supporter. With this collapse into the whims and fancy of that ludicrousness called "bipartisanism" we face what empiricism and experience tell us is a juggernaut: this bill, having broke loose of the bonds of petty squabbling, will snowball it's way down a mountain of bureaucracy, tossing aside obstacles with increasing ease as it accumulates its porky momentum. Then it will meander up the White House lawn to the waiting rubber stamp of the so-called President, and the keening, squawking, unwashed masses will finally have their white elephant - a morbid karmic reward for kissing a black ass.
