Public awaits First Dog news with bated breath declares the Houston Chronicle. I’m thinking that’s not accurate. At best its a gross exaggeration. The truth is that every day is a slow news day so there are reporters awaiting news of the First Dog with bated breath.
Maybe they should be reminded that if they are waiting for news like that with bated breath they no longer belong to the public.
Federalist No. 66 has me seeking opinions on a few questions. Specifically it got me asking which of the four elements of our federal government (the Executive, the Judicial, the Senate, and the House) is the most powerful? Which Should be the most powerful? The founders clearly had some idea about which they thought should be the most powerful:
that the most POPULAR branch of every government, partaking of the republican genius, by being generally the favorite of the people, will be as generally a full match, if not an overmatch, for every other member of the Government. (emphasis original)
Their expectation was for the House to exert the most influence, but to be sufficiently checked to prevent it from becoming a law unto itself.
The wording of the above quote also got me thinking about two other questions. In this day of low approval ratings (not as low now as they were six months ago), which of the four is the most popular? Is that most popular one the most powerful?
I suspect that the most popular of them is the Executive branch now – last year it might well have been the Judicial branch. I am fairly confident that one of those two branches is generally the most powerful, although I’m not sure that it is always the same one of those who that holds the upper hand.
In discussing the powers of the senate related to the making of treaties John Jay outlines a truth that undercuts one of the major arguments against term limits. In Federalist No. 64 he states:
providing for the frequent elections of senators in such a way as to obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men; for by leaving a considerable residue of the old ones in place, uniformity and order, as well as a constant succession of official information will be preserved.
The argument that term limits would place institutional knowledge quarely in the hands of lobbyists is a strong one until we consider that the very form of senate elections was to preserve institutional knowledge across elections. Even if we were to go to the extreme of enforcing a single term limit on every elected member of the federal government each state would always have at least one member of their congressional delegation that had at least two years worth of experience in Washington. Overall, each new election would leave at least 66 out of 536 elected officials returning to Washington to pass on their institutional experience. Considering how poorly 90 – 95% transfer of institutional experience has served this country recently I don’t see that we could be much worse off by having a 13% transfer of institutional experience.
I cannot imagine suggesting such an extreme term limit policy, and I don’t pretend that this answers all the critiques of the idea of term limits, but I will never give any weight to the argument that essential institutional experience would be left to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists in the future.
In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton discusses the responsibility of the Senate to try cases of impeachment. Despite, or possibly because of, the cases and threats of impeachment within my own lifetime which have been driven more by political considerations than by rational thought my respect is fixed for the method of impeachment and trials of impeachment designed by our founders and unaltered over two centuries.
I really enjoyed Scott’s introduction to different currency types. It’s a great introduction to the differences between fiat currency, commodity currency, and representative currency. Coincidentally we have implemented a new representative currency in our household in an effort to teach our children about money and work. Personally I think that the commodity backing our currency is the safest commodity around except for it’s non-transferable nature and often short shelf-life. Our currency is backed by goodwill – although there is an exchange rate from U.S. dollars.
As for real world crisis scenarios, my personal philosophy is to do my best to maximize my production ability, build up my stores, minimize my vulnerability, and do what I can to maximize social stability by building up a strong and prepared community around me.
Recently someone shared The Obama Deception with me (and others) asking for feedback. Normally I would not take two hours to watch such a video because these efforts rarely shed any real light on their subjects. Mostly, they just generate heat through friction. I decided that in the interest of giving an honest response and out of respect for the person who shared it I would take the time. I’m glad that I did so that I could know what I was responding to, and so that I could share the best 8 seconds of the video which come from nearly the end of the two hours.
My reaction to the whole video is to admit that there is an element of truth in it – as there usually is to reports of conspiracy theories. Also common among such reports is the fact that the reality is generally less sinister than the report would have you believe. It’s always helpful to refer back to Hanlon’s Razor:
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. (or similar variations)
I don’t mean to suggest that everyone in our government is incompetent – only that the assumption of malice in everything they do does nothing to help us act appropriately as we learn of poor or misguided actions.
My thought as I viewed the video was to ask myself, "what actions would they have people take?" Similarly, my thought whenever I am acquiring new information is to ask myself "what should I do about it?" The reason that I liked those 8 seconds of video is that they addressed that question. (After two hours I was surprised that they did address my question.)
My experience in asking that question has been that no matter how varied the problems in government, the answer to that question is generally some variation on the same theme. Study the Constitution and promote a culture of individual liberty in our own actions and within our government. In order to do that we have to understand what a culture of individual liberty is. For one thing, it means that we have to let go of the assumption that the government can or should solve many of our social problems. The role of government is not to make sure that the playing field is level – it is to ensure that nobody cheats.
Government cannot ensure a level playing field because each individual is different and not equal. No matter how much I might try to imagine otherwise the fact is that I can’t compete with Alex Rodriguez in baseball, LeBron James in basketball, or Tiger Woods in golf. The government is only there to enforce the rules of fairness. No matter how sophisticated a handicapping system they devise I will never be able to beat Tiger at a fair golf game. The rules are not to make sure that I score somewhere close to my competitor, they are to make sure that Tiger does not choose to take a mulligan or sign an inaccurate scorecard and that I don’t do those things either. On the other hand, the rules do not prevent Tiger from spotting me a shot or two (per hole) in the interest of keeping the game interesting.
In case anyone is wondering, individual liberty does not mean that the course owners can’t enforce a dress code despite the fact that my breaking the dress code does not give me any advantage in the game. In other words, the argument that "I’m not hurting anyone but myself" is not sufficient reason to strike down a law (contrary to what many libertarians might argue). It is acceptable for us to codify into law the values that we want to promote within our society.
I can’t decide whether it was beyond the scope of what Cameron wanted to write or whether he thinks that the discussion and dissent among the Democratic base really are less prevalent among Republicans. Regardless of which of those options is more accurate, as I read his post I was struck with how I see the exact same kinds of dissent among rank-and-file Republicans that he was describing among Democrats. I see it at the local and national levels and I have seen it in various forms for years.
While I don’t think that I could specify the line between healthy debate and destructive agitation I am confident that a lack of debate is anything but healthy in all or nearly all circumstances. I hope that over time the Republican party coalesces around those positions that I think are the most conducive to good government and good society, but I do not hope that the debate should ever die. I think that when people silence their honest differenced of opinion they open the door for destructive dictatorial types to have undue influence within the political process within the party and within the actual government.
In keeping with his propensity to launch new .gov websites (e.g. change.gov, recovery.gov, sigtarp.gov) President Obama has launched a new website where he can share some ideas that he knows won’t pass any Congress (Democrat or Republican) no matter how sound those ideas might be. It’s called AprilFools.gov. He includes ideas that are possible but not very likely, such as nominating cabinet picks without tax problems but the really depressing list is found among the ideas listed under “Impossible” –
Some people who read what I have written about news media might think that I would like to see the demise of newspapers – they would be wrong. I do think that news organizations generally need to make some adjustments to better serve their purpose (am am assuming a purpose of informing their audience). As I read a story in the Deseret News about their growth I saw two happy bits of information that illustrate the kinds of changes that can help the industry to survive. (I take no position on the Deseret News specifically, it is just the example at hand.)
The first is that it is possible for multiple publications to compete and survive.
Joe Cannon, now in his third year as editor, set out to make the newspaper and its Web site more appealing to Mormon readers. The effort already has made the paper’s Web site unusually active for a news organization its size, with 17 million page views a month. Visitors tend to linger, and half of them are from outside Utah, affirming Cannon’s strategy even as online advertising revenues remain marginal.
His aim is to reach out to "a very large Mormon diaspora across the country" that "puts us into a much larger pond," said Cannon, who was on the board of the Deseret News for a decade before taking over as editor. . .
Cannon said by making news coverage "more Mormon" he means appealing to a market niche larger than Utah instead of just a circulation territory.
This shift in focus at the Deseret News suggests a possible approach that would allows competing papers to coexist within the same market. In some ways it is not the same market because The Tribune is catering to the geographic region while the Deseret News is catering to the dominant culture of the region – even outside the immediate vicinity of the paper. The evidence of this is in the statement that "[t]he Salt Lake Tribune still is profitable, and together with the Deseret News is expected to remain on the short list of two-newspaper towns."
The second piece of good news is that "[s]mall newspapers are generally holding their own because of unique demographics." This seems to validate things I have read suggesting that the quality of papers were falling as they tried to put more emphasis on non-local coverage. To me this would suggest, for example, that the Provo Daily Herald should have it’s "your town" coverage of outlying cities such as Lehi and Eagle Mountain replaced by local papers – possibly with a joint operating agreement between the various Utah County papers. I’ll bet that the Herald and the new local paper(s) would be better able to serve the population of Utah County than the current setup. (Similar to my previous disclaimer -this is nota complaint against the Herald, but it should offer hope to any areas that feel underserved by it that there is an alternative path available.)
Many of the conservative Republicans who opposed John McCain even after he was the last Republican Presidential Candidate of 2008 rightly observed that the differences between McCain and Obama (or McCain and Bush, or Obama and Bush) were largely cosmetic in nature. They were not swayed by the rhetoric of change from the Obama campaign, but they would probably have welcomed a real substantive change even from a Democrat if any were offered. Over at the Financial Times today, Clive Crook captures the truth of this foresight in his column:
Mr Obama’s campaign always exaggerated the difference he would make on foreign policy. His style could hardly be more different from the caricature of US supremacism projected by George W. Bush, but the underlying issues were unlikely to be any easier to deal with. So it has proved. In many areas of foreign and security policy, in contrast to the clear break he is attempting in domestic policy, Mr Obama is mostly rebranding Mr Bush’s approach.
Mr Crook is absolutely right here except in his categorization of government policy as either foreign or domestic. I would say that a more accurate categorization would break foreign policy into military and trade policies while breaking domestic policy into social, monetary, and security policy. Of those categories the difference between Republican and Democratic positions are only cosmetically different on military, trade, monetary, and security policy. The only substantial difference between the two parties recently (if there is any substantial difference to be found) is in social policy.
Once upon a time the Republican party stood for something different from the Democratic party, but somewhere that changed so that functionally (meaning without regard to what both parties say) they all stand for codifying the status quo – whatever that may be on any given day.
I have some advise for a Republican party that is grasping for an identity – stand for something. Become a party of change that voters really can believe in. Everyone knows how hollow it sounds to have Republicans harping about lowering the deficit spending and not propping up "private" enterprise. It does not matter that those are good ideas that are worth standing for. In order to stand for something Republican parties around the nation need to demonstrate by their actions in those areas where they have some power (various governors and state legislatures) that they will act upon the principles that the party is vocal about. As they do that the next step should be to replace most of the Republicans in Congress with a new generation of Representatives and Senators who have not been betraying their avowed principles (or even actively standing in opposition to accepted party positions).
A clean break wtih the past and a clear adherence to party principles will be the only thing that gives the party a chance to re-emerge in its own right. Otherwise the national GOP will have to wait for people to get fed up with the foibles of the Democrats, just as they have becaome fed up wtih insincerity within the Republican ranks.
This year the state legislature tried to close a revolving door. In 2007 Congress tried to close their version of that door. I’m not sure how well either of them will work over time, but if it’s important to close revolving doors, maybe we should try closing another revolving door – the one from one federal elective office to the Presidency.
Admittedly, few sitting legislators have been elected as President, but you have to go back to 1900 to find a presidential election where a Senator did not seek the presidency (there were generally members of the house seeking it as well). Maybe if we placed a two year restriction after leaving a federal legislative office before a person could seek the presidency we might have fewer members of Congress trying to use their offices as stepping stones to the Oval Office.
Of course that would simply guarantee two year presidential campaigns, but at least those campaigns would not include a guaranteed fallback of a seat in the Senate for sitting senators.
