Why I am proud to be a Democrat

Thank you, Demosthenes, for a spirited speech, and an articulation of so much that we admire in both Republicans, and in Americans in general.

Demosthenes and I agree on a number of things. We agree on the innate goodness of the American people. We agree upon our proud traditions and values, and our quest to form a more perfect union.

I am glad he extends such courtesy to our party, and I shall do him like service. The Republican party, in its history, has been the lead for some of the most wonderful movements in our history. It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. It was a Republican President that created the national park system. It was a Republican President who created the Interstate highway system, a national science policy in the face of Sputnik, and ultimately proved the strongest voice against American imperialism. The Republican party has been a party of progress during much of its time, and has many accomplishments. Many of our great leaders come from those ranks.  As I extol my party, I take nothing away from the Republicans. It is good and right that we each take pride at our history, at the calls we got right, and the role each of us has played in this American pageant.

The gentleman is right that the forces of obstructionism and division are the real enemy. But here is where I must begin the long, disagreeable, but necessary process of disagreement with him. The Republican party is a shadow of what it once was, hostage to forces it long ago rejected and fought, and threatens to take the nation down with it as it stumbles toward implosion. For love of country and your honor, sir, I pray you tend to your house, for it is in considerable disorder, and your less distinguished colleagues do great disservice to the memory of your former greatness.

One of the gravest false choices that has been shouted at us is that the state can be strong only at the cost of the individual. No, no, no! I cannot stand by and allow these fearmongers malign our Republic, and in so doing, diminish the individual.

Our nation is a group of individuals, bound together by our love of freedom, our duty toward its protection, and our commitment to each other. We know our history -- that too frequently the liberty of some have come at the expense of others, those too weak, without an advocate, without economic independence, without the legal right to own property, or vote, or decide matters concerning their own body. We know that without a society of laws and common principle, the lesser elements will set us against each other, to their own gain.

We have seen it again, and again, and again, and we must oppose it, for this is the snake in the Garden.

Your party has celebrated the individual, and yet will not safeguard her when she needs food for her children, clean water to drink, affordable healthcare that she might be a mother, a wife, a grandmother to other great Americans. What you offer is not the emancipation of the individual -- you offer the freedom of the wilderness, the freedom of the lion's den.

That is not liberty -- that is callousness, a dereliction of our sworn duty as citizens and leaders. I reject the notion that we seek a state that dominates the life of the citizen. I also reject the notion that we owe our fellow citizens no protection against raw nature. It is a false choice between the two, and I reject both utterly.

This nation has, when it is at its best, stood for freedom from hunger, from oppression by interests both public and private, freedom from fear, freedom of choice, freedom to walk clear beaches and choose who you want to work for and who you want to marry. This nation is about freedom -- a freedom that often must be defended by the state against private interests that seek, for one reason or another, to curtail it.

We have shown that good people working in government are no different from good people anywhere else -- they have a job to do, they have rules they must follow, and they want more or less the same things those who work for companies do. Enough! Enough with the artificial divisions!

Now let me focus on what the Democratic party stands for, and not what it is against. For to be against principles and policies without offering better alternatives is not American at all.

I am a Democrat because I believe that no one should be forced to apologize for their love for another person -- not the love of a husband and wife, not the love of same-sex partners, not the love good men and women have for the poor, not the love a father has for his son, nor the love of the Son for all of us. It's not only the greatest commandment -- it is the greatest joy, the source of inspiration and meaning and human progress.

I believe passionately that we can judge a people by how they treat its most vulnerable - whether it be children, or women, or minorities, or the disabled, or the poor, or its non-citizens.

I am proud to be a Democrat because I believe in the wedding of principles and pragmatism. No generation has been free from difficult choice, from the crucible of old and new challenges. And ours is no exception.

I believe, as Viktor Frankl did, that liberty without responsibility is not freedom. It is the beginning of the end of freedom, for it is passion and defiance without wisdom and vision. It is not responsibility imposed by the state, nor the sacred text -- it is the responsibility that thoughtful souls realize in the dark of night, in their own struggles and their own blessings. It is the responsibility that is such a part of our identity that it transcends the identity divisions of faith, race, and nation.

I am a Democrat because, while I accept the imperfect nature of human beings, I believe that humans can be better than they are. I believe that men and women of sufficient courage can rise above the circumstances of birth to become more productive, more ethical, and more free. I am, despite everything, an optimist.

I am a Democrat because I believe in a nuanced partnership between expertise and democracy -- that a confident, open society can generate the best solutions if it both trusts its experts and guides the policy agenda in a manner consistent with our uniting principles. We do our people the greatest service when we trust them to face real facts honestly and in an adult manner, and do them great disservice if we seek to obscure what science tells us in more comforting, and more fatal, lies.


We must base our legislation on facts, not fears.


I am a Democrat because I want to be on the right side of history, to stand in support of, instead of opposed to, the arc of human history in which individuals become more free, and our identities become more rich and complex.

And yet, as much as I care about legacy, I am also a Democrat because I believe our duty is, first and foremost, to the present. It is to people I know and love who enjoy less than full citizenship, for whom daily life is filled with a hundred insults and obstacles that serve no purpose whatsoever. Whether inspired by differences in  race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or economic status, these acts hurt not only the target, but also diminishes the attacker. In my humble service, I do as well as I can to wed these high principles with a more primal desire to see justice, to preserve and protect those I know and love, even those who do not love me back, because of values that are bigger than any of us.

It may never be enough -- the path of principles demanded may never be fully lived up to. But I want to live in a way I can continue to look myself in the mirror, and look my mother and father in the eye, and say, "I don't know if I did enough. But I did something. And I will do more tomorrow."

I am proud to be a Democrat because it is a big tent, as America should be. I have known too many gifted individuals, of the highest qualities of character, intellect, and heart, to shut the door to any group, any creed, any people who have the desire and the fortitude to play their part in our unfolding greatness. No matter where they were born, or what they were born, or to whom, these men and women of talent and tenacity ought always have a place in America.

Those under this broad tent argue and bicker, often like family at Thanksgiving. But it is with thanksgiving I appreciate the strength of our Republic, that it can stand the confluence of disparate ideas united by our essential American spirit. It is through the dual traits of our diversity and our faith in our common dreams that makes our diversity our strength.

I am every bit as patriotic as my Republican colleagues, but find no reason to be as loud about it. I am proud to be a Democrat because I believe, firmly, that government is often a matter of the small and uncelebrated. It is a matter of tax incentives, a fair and transparent tax code, clear, effective regulation, protections such that we have healthy food to eat, clean air to breathe, safe cars to drive, and care for our elderly and disabled. It's about boring things, like highway bills, and electricity infrastructure. It is about policies that demand data, and expertise, and thoughtful consideration, but which will not have us lauded by generations hence. Sometimes, governance is mundane, and this is a virtue, our rhetoric notwithstanding. I am content to leave greatness to those who would seek it in the boardroom, the classroom, or the emergency room, or wherever outside this chamber that true heroes live and fight.

I am proud to be a Democrat because it is the party that best represents the spirit with which my ancestors came to these shores, and found opportunity even as they found challenges. I am here, in this great party, because I look around and see the future, a future of youth and ideas, guided by experience and wisdom.

I am proud to be a Democrat because I know that the best way to celebrate our military is to ensure they are not sent into harm's way unless absolutely necessary, until all other options have been exhausted, and then, only then, to do so with the reluctance, seriousness, and the weight of responsibility that belongs to those who would send them into danger.

I am proud of what the President has done, and how he has done it. I sometimes disagree with him on matters of policy, sometimes intensely. But I also stand in some awe at the great deal he has accomplished in four years, in the face of economic hardship, international hatred, fervent political opposition, and even his own coalition of disparate, centrifugal forces. He is a good man. Let me repeat, for it bears remembering: he is a good man. He is one of many good men and good women, including a Secretary of State that has played an indispensable role in guiding American foreign policy back on the right track. To both, we owe a debt of gratitude; to the nation, they express their gratitude for the trust placed in them.

***

The election draws nigh, and we can look forward to a mix of relief, celebration, disappointment, and uncertainty. But one thing is clear: we go into November 6 as Americans, and on November 7, we will still be Americans. We must not forget what that means, nor what was paid to achieve it, nor what we must yet do to maintain and grow our nation in peace and prosperity.

I am but a lowly man. But through service in this chamber, for this party, for this President, and, most of all, for this great nation, I have become more -- I have become a citizen of a Republic that is unparalleled in all history, a Republic that has achieved, yet continues to strive toward greater and more perfect expression of the goals of civilization. Together, through common citizenship, and all it means, I have found purpose and hope, laughter and love. I express my undying gratitude to this country of mine.

Whatever your party, whatever you belief, I hope you exercise your sacred duty November 6, and vote. Know that voting is not the end of your service, but the beginning, one of many, many things that define our efforts to keep freedom free.

God bless you, and God bless America.

- Locke

Why I am Proud to be a Republican

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/liberty_spirit.jpg 

Ladies and gentlemen, this address is titled, “Why I am Proud to be a Republican”. But I feel the more appropriate title would be, “Why I am Proud to be an American.”

I believe I should have titled this speech “Why I am Proud to be an American” because I believe deeply that our values and principles do transcend party and politics. They speak to the essence of what it is to be an American.

It is not because I fear to be associated with the Republican Party, or Republican values. I embrace both wholeheartedly. I have tried, however imperfectly, to live them as best as I can. In my life, I have worked to uphold them, and will work to my dying day, as long as the American people will have me, to improve the Republican Party, and ensure that it always, first and foremost, answers to the will of the people and the values of our Founding Fathers – nothing more, and nothing less.

If we ignore the histrionics of the media and the pundits, we will see that the present, brutal economic crisis has, in important ways, brought our national parties together. Both parties seek the restoration of our economy and way of life; both of us seek to restore American greatness. It is a greatness that stems not from the strength of arms, or of our economy – but from the moral fiber of a people unafraid to realize their greatness, and the responsibility it entails.

Make no mistake: our party and theirs offer a clear choice on critical questions of policy. Just how will we restore prosperity? To what degree can the people of this nation be trusted to make their own decisions? What role should the Federal government play in the lives of American citizens? These policy distinctions have been made abundantly clear, and the voters will give their verdict in November.

But Republicans and Democrats do not disagree about the greatness of America, or the importance of being true to its core values. It is important, even in this season of politics and campaigns, to remember how far we have come together.

Time and again, American servicemen and civilians have stepped forward to render assistance across the world: to feed the hungry, to defend the helpless, to oppose tyranny. Why? Why do this? Why sacrifice the flower of our youth, the riches of our industry, the energy of our people in this way? Not because it was in our national interest—for often, it was not. Not out of imperial ambition—our nation was born in defiance of empire, and will oppose it for all times, and have fought and will forever fight the forces of empire, to our dying breath. No. We did this because it was the right thing to do, because to do otherwise would be to reject values so close, so essential to the American spirit that it would be an act of national suicide.

We disagree, sometimes vehemently, with our opponents. But fundamentally, we do not question their patriotism. We question their judgment, their reasoning, and their arguments. That is how it should be. I hope they will extend us the same courtesy.

But I pray, plead, and beg our distinguished opposition to remember that our hard-won values and traditions are not yet universal. As Americans, we have done our best – and will continue to do better – to stay true to our better angels, and to promote democracy around the world. For it is human nature to seek liberty, however difficult the road, over the safety and comfort of the most gilded cage.

But not all have embraced this path, and some are threatened by our democratic principles. There are those that would do us as much harm as they could, who would slay innocents, even our children, in cowardly, dishonorable attacks, who would spread lies to divide us—anything, in their desperation, to destroy America. We must never forget that America’s enemies are real, and they are dangerous.

We are a nation of laws. But the international environment is a wilderness, with potential friends, but also proven enemies. It is our sacred duty, as representatives of the people, and citizens of America, to oppose evil, ancient and modern, wherever we must. We are not warmongers. We oppose them because it is right, because that is the role demanded of us by our history and our honor— just as it has been demanded of all previous generations of Americans. We pray that we will have the courage and wisdom we will need, borrowed from our common history and shared with each other, to defend American values from all enemies.

I respect the contributions of the Democratic Party, and of its membership. My ire is not directed toward them, for they, like ourselves, are at our best when we serve the people. Though we may disagree on policy and method, I believe that we share fundamental principles that speak well of both our parties, and of this nation. They are sometimes misguided, but they are our brothers and sisters. We both believe the words of our great, first Republican president: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And the array of present challenges facing our nation will require the full resources of all individuals of courage and ability.

No, I save my disdain and harsh words for the forces of division and disloyalty that seek to rend our united will with voices reduced to noise, to cloud our minds and dilute our will with falsehoods. Of them I have this to say: They are opportunists; they are demagogues; they are duplicitous and unscrupulous charlatans. They would be laughable in their desperation, were it not for the fact that they seek to strike a mortal blow to our Republic. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are helping our enemies abroad when they seek to turn us against ourselves. They dishonor themselves, and cower behind the protection offered by the very American principles they demean.

Their strategy is simple: they seek to shame the American citizen. They act to drag our flag, our history, our very self-respect through the mud. They would have us disown and dishonor our heritage and the sacrifices of those who came before under the golden calf idol of progress. They would have us turn against ourselves and destroy the best of America for any of their false gods. They would turn the words “American” and “patriot” into epithets.

I have no doubt that they will fail, and that American principle and honor will prevail over the forces arrayed against us. For I have placed my faith in the American citizen. That faith has been justified, countless times, even when I, personally, was unworthy of the blessings and second chances given to me by that most noble and most humble of men.

American citizens deserve that faith. For it is the blessing, and burden, of the Republic that the citizen knows he will have to live with the consequences of his actions. The burdens of high taxes, of uncontrolled government spending, of social policies, of restricted liberties, of the disgrace of failing to leave a better nation and stronger economy for those who are to come – these he is asked to bear. And so, burdened by conscience, but strengthened by native courage, the American citizen votes; he speaks, he fights, and, across all professions and all walks of life, he serves his country. He serves no party, not even our Grand Old Party; he serves the nation, however he can, however he must.

The day we stop trusting the American citizen to do what is right is the day the Republic ends. Those of us who love this country, who owe everything to this country, will fight to the very end to ensure that day never arrives.

It is that faith in the American citizen that the technocrats of this administration and some members the elite media underestimate. It is ridiculed as outmoded thinking, inappropriate for a modern, complicated world. They call it quaint, naïve and simplistic.

But the truth is, sometimes, very simple. We make no pretensions to being a complicated people. But we are a brave one. We greet the dawn as Americans of ten generations have; with both sword and outstretched hand. It is how our diverse and variegated society finds, in spite of differences and disagreements, the spirit to grow and thrive.

We place our faith in our God. We place it in the American soldier, the American engineer, the American teacher, the American doctor, the American protestor, the American factory machinist, the American construction worker and the American entrepreneur. We place it, even, yes, in the Democrats. Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, our lives, and our souls, are daily placed in the common peril of a world seeking to tear itself apart, and daily saved by the courage, industry, and dignity of an army of familial strangers. This is not an exaggeration—this is simply the way we live, the way our society functions. This simple faith is what keeps us safe and gives us the courage to meet the modern, complicated world head-on. Our faith in the character of the American citizen, of the free individual, makes us the envy of the world, and on the right side of history.

We cannot continue to trust this young, inexperienced man, however bright and well-spoken, however well-intentioned, with the future of our three hundred million citizens--with the future of the entire world. Our country chose the allure of youth over the experience of age four years ago, and even those who made that choice have come to regret it. Yet through it all, we have served, for our duty requires that we serve always, and not only when it is convenient, and that we protest when it is right, and not only when it is popular. We respect his heart, his demonstrated intellect, and his gifted oratory. We respect his love of this country. But our commitment to the American people demands our dissent and opposition, and demands a new President..

The will of the people must be served, and it will be, in November. And the message will be clear to both victor and vanquished: work together to restore American greatness.

Let America’s natural drive for industriousness and justice be fully unleashed. Give business the tools it needs to race forward. Give the individual citizen the dignity of independence, the respect and deference earned by his actions and the sacrifices of ten generations of fallen heroes. Give our soldiers our confidence, our material support, and our prayers. Reaffirm our solemn vow to use them only when we must, and to honor their sacrifice by remembering them in war and in peace.

Do not be afraid to be noble, to be proud to say “I am American” with stentorian confidence. For, in all of human history, there has never been a title as great as that of “American citizen”. It is the most unforgiving in its demands of responsibility. But with it comes the most generous of rewards realized by mortal man – dignity, honor, and liberty.

Let us remember and live the words of the great American clergyman, Phillips Brooks: 

“Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men! Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks! Then the doing of your work shall be no miracle. But you shall be a miracle. Every day you shall wonder at yourself, at the richness of life which has come to you by the grace of God.”

March forward, Americans. Take back your country from the forces of division that seek to shame us, to manipulate our natural honor and integrity for their own gain. 

March with eagles in your eyes, charity and humility in your heart, and the wisdom of the ages in your mind. 

March with the confidence of righteousness and experience. 

March with the confidence that you carry the flame of ages to a darkened world. 

We carry each other to the Promised Land, to the Shining City upon a Hill. 

We carry on, to tomorrow, to eternal glory. 

We do this because it is right and it is honorable. 

We do this because we are Americans, and refuse to live any other way. 

May it be said, a thousand years from now, of our dark time, that men and women of integrity, of vision, of compassion, and especially of courage, made their voices heard, stood against the forces of evil, and prevailed. And may it be said we did so united, one nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all.

Thank you, and God bless America.


-Demosthenes

A letter to an old friend, offering a promise of hope

I recently had a conversation with an old acquaintance-turned-friend from a distant land. I do not know how or why we have remained in touch - we disagree on a number of things concerning politics and human nature. More to the point, I offer nothing professionally, and am, in many ways, a failure in his field. Someday, perhaps, I'll know why.

He recently ended his leadership of a scientific institution, and was looking forward to retirement. We chatted recently when he was in town, and he seemed a bit more gloomy than normal.

If I can paraphrase what he communicated, it would be as this:

In my life I have fought in two wars. I have seen war. I have seen peace. I have built a family, a career, an institution. I have mentored students. I have watched walls rise and fall, and rise again. And now, as a forced retirement looms, my pessimism grows. The democratization of education has led to a decline in quality. Students now feel entitled to degrees, or good grades. I fear that, very soon, the only meaningful research that will be done will be in monasteries, as we enter a second dark age.

It was painful for me to hear. Although I had a sense that he was, generally, a pessimist when it came to human nature, it was the most grim I had ever heard him.

I recall the fall of the Wall, the grandeur of Voyager, and the optimism following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I recall that optimism give way to a blend of terror and inaction in Rwanda, in Yugoslavia, in the Congo, in Lebanon and Gaza. I remember 9/11. I remember protesting, naively, ineffectually, the march to war in Iraq. I remember Katrina, and its revelation of the Third World within America. I remember the financial crisis. I remember the Arab Spring. I remember the histrionics of the last two years of politics.

On the specific issues of education and science, I wonder if the democratization of truth, and the monetization of education, will continue to undermine American science and American progress, and whether it will do so irreparably. Our declining attention span, our ability to know increasing numbers of "things" without a corresponding increase in understanding, our worship of beauty and youth over enduring character: all speak poorly of our national priorities and our private chatacter.

And more to the point, I remember my own failure to live up to the standards I had for myself over the last decade. It brings me daily shame and fear, and I do not go to sleep without considering what I have wrought on myself, and on my family.

Although I have not suffered as acutely as others through it all, each failure, each realization of the limitations of human goodness and justice, took away, piece by piece, my faith in America, my faith in democracy, my faith in humanity and God. And it robbed me of my faith in myself.

There is much to lament, much to cause us to lose hope in progress, or in the future.

Yet, as a person who has become acutely aware of the self-destructive nature of certain thought patterns, I feel it is my duty to challenge this bleak outlook. Maybe its cognitive-behavioral conditioning. Maybe it's more primal - the instinct that a life devoid of hope is meaningless and intolerable.

I can't speak for my friend's nation or his people; I can only speak as an American, for it is what I know, and, with the passage of time and distance from school and work, perhaps one of the few identities I have left.

I do not believe in the arc of history, or laws of historical change. Civilizations have reverted to barbarism too frequently to believe in such a thing as permanent progress. This is not to undervalue progress; it is to recognize its fragility. It is also to recognize that it is to the credit of our ancestors, and ourselves, that something approaching an arc - interrupted and irregular that it may be - has emerged. For each step could have been otherwise, were it not for enough brave individuals, of different talents, backgrounds, and dispositions, to see value in the fight.

Through that lens, every step forward becomes important - because there are no guarantees that we, the people, may be led backward, all too often, our own cowardice. Not leaders. Not economics. Not even history. But our own courage, or lack of it.

Every individual, in every generation, either finds the courage to change themselves, and their world, or not.

I am a weak, weak, man. But enough strong women and men have loaned me their courage. And I have enough shame and honor that I know I must at least try to repay the loan, over time.

To those people who have inspired me, and continue to inspire, by their unflinching, irrational, and passionate loyalty to emboldening those around them with, first, courage, then wisdom and a voice: I thank you. For you have stayed the self-destructive demons that would have robbed me of everything, including life itself, long ago. They range from close family members, to kind strangers, to friends come and gone, to lost lovers, to brilliant and compassionate colleagues. This jumble of experiences, emotions, and people form an inchoate, but passionate, philosophy and faith, a reason for being.

We who have lost our faith now prepare to rebuild it on a stronger foundation, on a recognition of what is and what can be. It is a faith in every sense of the word - irrational, based on unprovable assumptions, and often held even in the face of contrary argument or evidence. Yet it is a faith that demands of us enough open-mindedness, enough forgiveness, and enough activity, or we will fail to be worthy of the name "American".

It's the only faith I have left.

But damnit - it's mine! And I believe it's yours, too - bloody, bruised, beaten, but yet not dead.

That faith  gets me through the memories of a chaotic half-decade and gives me the confidence that my judgment, my courage, and my compassion will return to what it was, and grow beyond their previous limitations.

It's what causes me to laugh, with confidence as much as exasperation, at today.

It's what gets me out of bed and makes me drive across Los Angeles to sponge a free dinner off a friend and strangers.

Future posts might explore in more concrete detail the state of education, and of scientific research, and of American democracy, and what steps can be made to improve these institutions. They will hopefully be practical, immediately applicable, and effective.

But sometimes, we need a simpler reminder of why we bother going on.

So take heart, distant friend. We must labor for "a land that never has been yet- and yet must be".

I know, these are just words. Whether they are empty or not depends on what comes from them.

Words and promises written in the bloody history of our peoples. Words and promises written in the smile of your grandson.

You loan him, and me, a bit of your courage. In turn let me loan you a bit of hope, until such time that you find enough for yourself to pass it along to others.

Words - they are a start, a promise that "for all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

Time to get back to work. Take care, friend.

Admittedly armchair economics - taxes and jobs

Tax policy should always be on the table. I'm tired of listening to people who admittedly have the job of fighting tax increases. I'll do my job, and dig past the repeated boilerplate about taxes killing investment and hiring.

American business have practically zero interest rates and historically low tax rates. And yet businesses are (perhaps rationally) not hiring. No wonder - the customer that represents 25% of the economy said it is tightening their belt, and probably going to fire a bunch of employees and close many positions held by current retirees. (That's the government - local, state, and federal.)

Let's step aside from the somewhat artificial government/private sector separation. Lewis Black put it best here (starting around 0:41): whether it's government, or the private sector, there are people who do the job, and there are rules that are either followed or broken.

So let's ditch whether a job is public sector or private sector for a second. Fiscal tightening is probably going to be bad for employment in the near to mid-term, whatever its impact longer term on the economic health of the country.

I'm wondering if it's possible to construct a tax that incentivizes hiring and capital investment now, rather than later. I'm going to avoid changing taxes on earned income, and explore policies to move money that is sitting in cash/short-term bonds.

Let's say, hypothetically, I'm a major company in America, continuing to make significant profits and sitting on a pretty hefty cash reserve. Policy is enacted such that my effective cost to hire and buy equipment will increase next year and stay higher. This gives me an incentive to do as much purchasing and hiring this year as seems reasonably prudent. Maybe there's equipment that I need. Maybe I need to hire to replace retiring employees.

How would this be done? There are carrots, and there are sticks.

Carrots are gifts above and beyond what is currently given. It might be a direct tax break for hiring or captial spending. It might be targeted subsidies for industries that can scale up quickly (construction, as opposed to, say, advanced research).

Sticks would involve taking away existing breaks, or imposing completely new taxes. It could involve ending the current tax credit for hiring new employees. It could be an increase in Medicare contributions to apply to new hires after a certain date, or an increase in sales tax. It could be a change in depreciation rules for capital purchases. It could be a change in environmental or labor regulations that will exempt those hired before a certain date.

Naturally, it wouldn't make sense to make the trigger date too soon. For example, if the sticks came with hiring in one week, there wouldn't be time to really increase hiring and purchasing before the cost of hiring/purchasing increased, which could, indeed, hinder recovery. But it wouldn't make sense to make it so far into the future that the change was discounted - actuarily as well as psychologically - to the point that it didn not change behavior. One to three years seems reasonable; perhaps over a longer period and involving increases over a period of time.

Carrots require more government spending and breaks, and probably more deficits. It's a bit odd that the party most concerned with government spending wants more work on one side of the ledger, and in a way that could potentially increase deficits.

I'm not exploring the moral fairness angle, or the effectiveness long-term of such policies. I'm also not exploring the political tractability of such a proposal (though it might be better than it seems at first glance, if one chooses to fight for it). I'm just wondering how it could be done.

Too often the focus is on changes on taxes on earned or unearned income. But if the goal is to change the behavior of companies that have cash on hand, then the tools used have to operate on that cash, and not only on the promise or reality of future profits.

Would love some informed, well-reasoned thoughts on this.

Follow-up analysis to HuffPo article on policy coordination

Follow-up analysis to David Bromwich: A Line in the Sand is Occasionally Useful

I just came across a short article at HuffPo about how Obama has publicly corrected statements made by Biden and Emmanuel regarding Israel and a public health care option, respectively. Bromwich should be praised for catching these easily-overlooked events, but I feel he takes the wrong message from each of these. I infer the following: either (1) Obama is using an internal system of advisement similar to that used by other leaders - particularly Elizabeth I and Louis XIV, whereby his silence and ambiguity on suggested ideas is a valuable tactic, or (2) the Administration is using Biden, Emmanuel, and others to float trial policies, to be reversed or modified based on the response.

What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name? Weighing in on Texas State Rep. Betty Brown comments

I decided to write about the case involving Texas State Representative Betty Brown, (R-Terrell) (homepage), because I think it’s important to address events that might trigger emotional rather than nuanced reactions in as calm a manner as possible. There are way too many issues to take the eye off the ball and rant about a case which only serves to reinforce preexisting notions of an imagined “other”.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Rep. Brown made some controversial comments during a session of the House Elections Committee in response to testimony delivered by Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

TARP Funds in Hand

Uncle Sam!
Uncle Sam!



That Uncle Sam!
That Uncle Sam!
I do not like that Uncle Sam!

Do you like TARP funds in hand?

I do not like them, Uncle Sam.
I do not like TARP funds in hand.

Why we will be disappointed in Obama, and why we should not despair

This is Part 2 of a post on the removal of the Family Planning provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. You can read part 1 here.

A lot of my friends will probably be dismayed that I sympathize with the choice to remove that particular provision from the Act. As I mentioned in Part 1, I am happy to discuss it, and reserve the right, as an intelligent, honest adult to change my views when presented with another, more durable position and argument.

But I wanted to tackle a broader issue in this post.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. Julia? Are you awake? There is truth, and there is untruth. To be in a minority of one doesn't make you mad.

Why I am Supporting Barack Obama

Why I am Supporting Barack Obama

I decided to write a note about why I am supporting Barack Obama. I do so, in part, to start a conversation with the rare person that happens to read my writings, but also because I genuinely am not completely certain why I support him. Writing has always helped me clarify and communicate my thoughts, though feedback from anyone reading this would be most appreciated.

Why am I supporting Barack Obama?

I could say that I'm supporting him because his story is mine.

On October 3, 2007, Barack Obama was hitting the stump in Iowa. As he was fielding questions on policy and the economy, one question was asked that was particularly unusual. An audience member asked, "What would you say is the most painful and character-building experience of your life that puts you in a position to make important decisions of life and death and the well being of our country?”

As reported by the NYTimes, he paused for a couple seconds, then said: "It's a terrific question."

He answered:

“I would say the fact that I grew up without a father in the home. What that meant was that I had to learn very early on to figure out what was important and what wasn’t, and exercise my own judgment and in some ways to raise myself.

"My mother was wonderful and was a foundation of love for me, but as a young man growing up, I didn’t have a lot of role models and I made a lot of mistakes, but I learned to figure out that there are certain values that were important to me that I had to be true to.

"Nobody was going to force me to be honest. Nobody was going to force me to work hard. Nobody was going to force me to have drive and ambition. Nobody was going to force me to have empathy for other people. But if I really thought those values were important, I had to live them out.

"That’s why it’s so important for me now, both as a United States senator and as a president candidate, but also as a father and a husband to wake up every morning and ask myself, am I living up to those values that I say are important? Because if I’m not, then I shouldn’t be president.”

Some of you may know that my father is bipolar. He has been so for the last 22 years. t I harbor mingled sadness and anger about the absence of a father at home, and the complexities the disorder brings to our relationship.

But I think many Americans, even those who grew up with fathers, even with fathers cared for them, laughed with them, and taught them what it was to be a man - even these young and graying male Americans are today, tragically often, wandering around lost, whether in the Los Angeles ghettos or Manhattan law firms.

One of the successes of modern society is that many middle class men have no existential battles to fight. We have not had a draft that required us to serve our country. We don't have the training and team-building that come with team sports. And that transition from brute strength and hierarchy to more nuanced articulations of power and progress leave us frustrated, confused - in a word, emasculated.

Why else does Fight Club resonate so well with today's audiences and readers? Why else does Rebel Without A Cause continue to strike a cord in our fatherless, landless hearts?

But I'm not supporting him because he is a role model for a man who overcame growing up without a father.

I could support him because of his wonderful speech on race last Tuesday.

In that speech, he articulated the need for Americans to have a conversation about race, to realize that there are broad perceptual differences between blacks and whites in society. (And, no doubt, Latinos and Asians - much has been made about whether or not members of either ethnic group would support a black candidate.)

Race does matter, even for non-racists. It mattered when a cross was burned on my undergraduate campus. It mattered when I was told to take my "goddamn Jap self and goddamn Jap car back home" when I was stuck on the side of the road in Enfield, NY.

In a broader sense, psychological tests (and empirical evidence from salespeople) have shown that similarity between individuals facilitates cooperation and compliance. Even dating handbooks advise frustrated singles to mirror their date's gestures to communicate interest and agreement, and facilitate a more welcoming atmosphere.

Those of us of minority ethnic status frequently do not have the clear role models, the hero figures, the leaders we would like to emulate.

An example: prominent contemporary Asian-American role models include John Yoo (enabler of Cheney's push to expand presidential powers during his time in the DoJ Office of Legal Council), Daniel Dae Kim (supporting actor in Lost), and John Cho (Harold from Harold and Kumar). In an earlier time, there was Gedde Watanabe (Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles) and Mickey Rooney - sort of (he donned yellowface to play Japanese landlord/pervert Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's).

Fabulous.

Many have hailed Obama's address as a landmark speech. A few, especially in right-wing radio and television, panned his binary use of teleprompters and considered it a poorly written/recited speech.

There is no way this compares to the fine sermons of Dr. Martin Luther King, or the poetry of the Kennedys. At least one UK commentator compared his speech to those of Lincoln - our friends across the Atlantic can be forgiven for their hyperbole, and understood for their desperation for "something else" from America.

Mr. Obama had the benefit of two teleprompters and safety when he delivered his speech - Bobby Kennedy had neither as he addressed supporters in Indianapolis to inform them that Dr. King had been shot. Somehow, he made Aeschylus resonate with a poor, urban audience, and saved that city from the riots that burned every other major American city that night.

Obama's speech didn't need to be a sermon. His path, and the path so many of us now tread, had been blazed by others. Our passage on this ship of state has, too often, been paid in the blood of our ancestors. This is not the dawn of a revolution in race relations - the revolution came and went over some centuries. This speech was a call for reformation, though still important in its efforts to build upon the partial successes of the past.

In no other nation is his story possible. My story might be, but I'm not about to push my luck and leave to find out.

So I could support him because of his speech on race - and it may have tipped the balance - but it's not the main reason.

I am also definitely not supporting him based on his plans for the space program.

For those whose professions and megalomaniacal predilections concern human spaceflight, we noted that Obama was planning on postponing Constellation a few years and using that money to fund federal science education programs. In the last couple months, he reversed course.

Maybe he did it because of pressure from space advocates. Maybe someone informed his campaign that large-scale engineering projects can't and don't work that way (especially since NASA's boomer workforce will be - or should be - retiring soon). Maybe he did it because that additional "gap" would mean additional hundreds of millions of dollars going to Russian (maybe European?) space agencies to ferry American astronauts to and from low-earth orbit.

Maybe he decided he needed to win Florida.

In any case, this instance, as well as the failure of a staffer to name his significant accomplishments in the Senate on national television, revealed that he and his team have much growing to do. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Yet it does explain why Clinton has - with mixed success - used experience as a hammer/can opener against Prince Charming's suit of armor, hoping to show that the emperor wears no clothes.

So it's not space policy, or experience.

And, just in case you're wondering, I'm not a misogynist, or at least am trying, through the efforts and wisdom of my wonderful female colleagues, to be less of one. I'm also not plagued terribly by "white guilt".

So why am I supporting Barack Obama?

I'm supporting him because one of the (un)intended consequences of the Bush administration was to take Americans' existing skepticism about their government and further erode our confidence in the necessity and goodness of government. In case you doubt this, consider that one presidential candidate accrued an active, intelligent and articulate group of supporters based of a platform of eliminating the IRS and personal income taxes.

It is true - we are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. But more fundamentally, we're stuck between depending upon a government we don't trust/have confidence in, and depending upon a private sector that appears unable to police itself, define the limits of the market, or embark upon the collective action needed to address externalities like global warming, long-term energy policy, and affordable healthcare.

In times of uncertainty and frustration, I turn to history as both guide and inspiration. On one thing I can agree with the talking heads - it is useful to consider JFK in evaluating Barack Obama and the spirit of the time.

Kennedy's gift was not his brilliant insight into the state of the world - he won on a lie about the missile gap.

Nor was his gift experience. McNamara initially refused to join as Secretary of Defense, claiming he didn't know anything about the DoD. Kennedy replied that there was no school for learning how to be President - they would both learn as they went along.

Kennedy's gifts were charisma and oratory, and the confidence that came with them. That was Reagan's gift in 1985. Churchill's gift in 1940. Elizabeth I's gift in 1588.

I don't exonerate either Kennedy or Reagan from their respective policy blunders and liberal use of the CIA to destabilize legitimate democratic governments around the world. The cynical part of me says to not expect Obama to refrain from using the CIA to defend the American Empire; at this point, it is part of the job description.

But I think that restoring confidence in America - the confidence of Americans and all citizens of the world - is the key that will open all our present locks, and keep us safe - for at least a few years. Nations and individuals have typically traipsed from crisis to crisis. But there are reasons that indicate that these coming years might be different, might be critically important for our world.

I have tremendous respect for Hillary Clinton. I am cognizant, albeit imperfectly, of the challenges Ms. Clinton has faced during the last 15 years. And I understand the method to her tactics. Her drive to win is both frightening and inspiring; I believe she embodies what policy expert Chris Chyba described as "the ability to see the world as it is."

I have read both Why Courage Matters and Faith of My Fathers, and am tremendously impressed by John McCain's sense of honor. His books have reminded me, time and again, what it means to serve, to strive, and to reach within to find the courage to overcome fear, and the principles and values that are the bedrock and substance of character. And there is a part of me that wonders whether either Democratic candidate might seriously pull out of Iraq without considering the probability and implications of a regional war.

In truth, I feel that, for the first time in a very long time, I feel confident that either would make a good President.

But of the three major candidates, Obama, and Obama alone, has the ability to inspire, at once, a generation that lost its heart in 1968, and a generation coming into its own in 2008. As Robert Kennedy once said, "Like it or not we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But these are the times that lend themselves most to the creative efforts of men."

For all of Hillary Clinton's intelligence, connections, toughness, and experience, she has not been able to do that.

And for all of McCain's honor and leadership, he has not been able to do that.

Obama will not offer us anything new - he cannot. The source of change comes from us, through local efforts and the hundred or so personal connections we maintain in our lives. Our mental hardware has limited upgrade capabilities, though it's always a good idea to update the software (as we did in 1865, 1935, 1964, and, one hopes, 2008).

Our fate in Iraq may be sealed. Our economic struggles will likely persist for years - and if there is an earlier recovery, that will only facilitate the forgetfulness that leads to new bubbles and lax oversight. And no man has found a way to stop time, to forestall the aging and changing nature of our population, as demographic changes redraw the face we and the world see as representing America.

But these challenges, new and old, avoidable or not, will demand leadership, confidence, and an ability to attract brilliant minds capable of candor and analysis into public service. Obama can do this better than anyone else in the field, and perhaps better than any other pretender to the throne in the last 40 years.

So I do support Barack Obama for the presidency.

But I also worry. I worry that too many of us - myself included - expect too much from one man. To the vast majority of Obama supporters out there, I have an inconvenient truth:

Barack Obama doesn't know who you are, and he doesn't really care about you.

He knows you through story, through analogy, through the vast, sweeping narrative of confusion and woe that rises like a spring tide in deep summer nights. He cares about you as Americans, as human beings struggling to make sense of it all, to feed your families, to find love, to find something worth believing, worth fighting for, or at least discussing over coffee.

But he is not going to fix all the crap in your life or mine, the crap we helped create, the baggage we carry and refuse to let go because it's easier to bear what we know than risk the uncertainty of change, real change.

What if change means, for the first time, we realize the extent to which we, individually, are the source of so much of our own misery?

What if change means accepting that if God Almighty will not give us peace of mind we have not worked to deserve, prosperity we have not earned, or love we have not sought, then we should not expect our first African-American president to deliver us from our variegated and vague evil?

What if change means taking a cold, hard look at what we do and do not need, and how far we are willing to go to preserve our privileged place in the world, and having to tear down the image we have constructed for ourselves of benevolence? What if, in the final analysis, change means choosing to embrace our empire and the identity of imperialism?

Change may not be good. It may not be pretty. But it looks like it's on the way. All we can do is choose - now - to be ready or not, proactive or reactive.

So I support him, but I warn fellow supporters. You must not look to outsource your duty, your commitment to self-improvement, to the improvement of those around you, to the change you must bring about in your own corner of the world, far from the glory and glamor of marble monuments and pressed suits. For there will be no peace internationally while there remains poison at home, frayed relationships, broken lives.

And once we fix what can be fixed, at home, our labors cannot cease. For no man, even Barack Obama, can do it all himself. From obscure corners, in anonymous cleanrooms and classrooms and boardrooms, we must work hard, with compasison, and vision, and tenacity, in teams and networks that bear little resemblance to traditional hierarchies, but do not dilute responsibility even as they diffuse power. For the promise, and the peril, of our future comes from a trillion tiny choices and decisions, and the collective action of so many individuals - now violent, now industrious, now afraid and easy to govern, now hopeful.

Until we take our many roles seriously, especially those of parent, teacher, and citizen - and until we learn to check our egos at the door - it won't matter what gladiator we champion. We are Rome no matter who emerges victorious. We have many hungry hearts to feed in our own lives, and many sins to atone for and make amends, far from the eyes of the press, far from the calamities of the past, far from the comforting guiding hand of a father that may never be.

Belief in the good is the beginning of good, but only the beginning.

But do believe. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is... hope.

Nationalization of US Banking System?

Interesting and informative post on the blurry line between debt and equity:
http://www.interfluidity.com/posts/1204920896.shtml

Comments on talk - "The Traditional Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons"

Letter to Dr. T. V. Paul



Dr. T. V. Paul,

Thank you for an interesting and enlightening talk. I have had a bit of time to digest your talk, and want to share my thoughts on the two aspects of reputation that were brought up: deterrence and non-use. Granted, I'm not a political scientist and have little formal training - please bear with me as I articulate my thoughts.

My comments are organized along the following points:

1. Reputational benefits for non-use and deterrence, while in principle coming at the expense of each other, both depend upon the potential for actual use.

Reputation from both non-use and deterrence both stem from one fundamental assumption: that the weapons could credibly be used. Without the credible potential for use, a nation gains no reputational advantage for not using them. Only by being in a position of strength is nonagression seen as a benevolent action. A state gains no positive reputation unless (1) the weapons could be used, (2) the state might incur some tactical or strategic disadvantage from their nonuse, (3) the potential target or third parties recognize both (1) and (2).

2. I assume that the credible use of nuclear weapons by any of the major nation-states has decreased with time, especially after the end of the Cold War.

The reasons for this are many - the decrease in great powers defining the conflict with other powers in existential terms; increased interdependence for economic growth, increasingly seen as a good in its own right and a source of legitimacy and power for ruling elites; and, not the least among these, the acceptance of non-use as a norm. It is possible that the diminished perceived possiblity of the use of nuclear weapons by the US or the other four major nuclear states comes from a qualitative change in the international system, where actual dominance over another nation's land, resources, and people occurs in the economic sphere.

Alternatively, perhaps because of the issues associated with the passage of time that Judith Reppy and others brought up at your talk, the credible use of nuclear weapons may have diminished with time. I have read Hiroshima; my family is from the area, and have a fair idea of the physics and material substance of a nuclear weapon. However, it is very, very hard for me - perhaps because I was born in 1983 - to imagine the use of nuclear weapons by anyone other than a rogue state/terrorist organization. While at some level this is a good thing - it reflects the strength of the norm, or at least the image of a norm, it does lead to problems, which takes me to point 3.

3. With diminished credibility of the threat comes a decrease both in their deterrence value and in the reputation for non-use.

A difference may exist between non-use against other nuclear powers, non-use against non-nuclear powers, and non-use against non-state actors. I believe you mentioned this in your talk, and would love to hear more about this.

4. Instead of strengthening the norm of non-use, the diminished credibility leads to a decrease in relevance of nuclear weapons.

In particular, the reputational benefit nuclear weapons provide, either deterrence or non-use, is diminished. By contrast, the opportunity cost of continuing to fund nuclear weapons development and maintenance instead of other areas of potential investment has increased because of increased opportunities to invest outside of one's national borders.

5. To restore the relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool of policy, the US could modify its nuclear arsenal to increase the credibility of the nuclear threat to uncooperative nations.

The most obvious way of doing this is to lower the yield. Though conventional weapons have equivalent yields, nuclear weapons will still remain a distinctive threat precisely because of the remaining differences in the material (specifically, radiation) and constructed (historical legacy, images of radiation) natures of the bomb.

6. Scientists, elements of the Pentagon, and perhaps elements of other branches in American government may acceede to such a policy for distinct reasons, but which converge upon a policy of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon:

Scientists
a. assumption that the norm will not be violated gives scientists a clear moral conscience
b. need to redefine institutional and professional relevance of nuclear stockpile and associated workforce after end of Cold War
c. absence of alternative work opportunities (in the short-term), pending commitment in money and policy to an energy policy incorporating a heavy investment in nuclear energy

Department of Defense
a. restore credibility of nuclear weapons as a tool of deterrence
b. institutional desire to retain budgets and priority for programs

Other Branches
a. a credible nuclear deterrent is seen as a low-cost alternative to a conventional buildup (rationale probably originates from Eisenhower's desire to balance budgets while maintaining an effective counterweight to Soviet expansionism)
b. nuclear weapons (and advanced technology in general) is easier to sell to the American public than an increase in the number of people in the armed services


Aside:
One of the interesting features of the behavioral economics course I am taking is the concrete experimental evidence that losses are felt more strongly than gains by individuals. Generalizing from the micro to macro picture, it's possible not only to say that an institution/group will defend strongly its existing resources/budgets, but that it will do so even when faced with alternatives that may in fact be slightly more beneficial. What is true for money is definitely true for work experience and training, one thing that I hope US workforce retraining initiatives take into account. (I was inspired by this when thinking about the personal difficulty I am having leaving research science for a career in policy.)


Other notes:
Attitudes to the use of nuclear weapons may differ between the military and civilians, but is far from definite and may fall along defense/diplomacy lines (i.e., State department officials may have more in common with a Sec State who happens to be a general than other civilians in the DoD). Interesting case studies would include individuals who had served in both miliitary and civilian capacities (George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell). It might be interesting to consult the literature on whether there is a difference between the uniformed individuals who serve as elected officials versus those appointed to civilian posts. Also, is there a selection effect - are the "right" generals more likely to be selected for civilian office?

-----
Historical aside:

A good illustration in the distinct personalities that exist within the military would be the contrast drawn between MacArthur and Eisenhower. There is a particularly vivid image of this, highlighted by Mark Perry in "Partners in Command", in which MacArthur's callous use of force and image of a commander surveying the battlefield is contrasted with Eisenhower's resigned, somber expression during the use of military

force against the "Bonus Army" of WWI veterans in the late Hoover administration. (image at http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/t029187a.jpg) Perry writes: "But the difference between the two was obvious for all who saw them at Anacostia Flats: 'There is MacArthur in full regalia, complete with several decks of ribbons, looking sternly upon the 'battlefield,; with the look of eagles in his eyes,' a reporter later reflected. 'Next to him is Ike, dressed in a regular unadorned uniform. If you take a close look at the expression on Eisenhower's face, you realize it is one of cold, caustic contempt. This is the closed Eisenhower, who later observed he had learned acting from MacArthur." (Perry, 48)

-----

Best of luck. I hope these comments have proven worth your time reading.

Cheers,

Ryan

response to comments on previous post, morphing into commentary on American institutions and risk

To an anonymous friend, RE: comments on previous post via Facebook -

As usual, you rightly call me on making blanket, qualitative, useless, and borderline nationalist chauvinistic comments about things that are far beyond my competence. This is why I depend upon you as a friend and intellectual-emotional counterweight to my delusions of grandeur. I've been in college too long.

However, being an intellectual-wannabe, I will of course try to discursively (word I learned in S&TS) cover my intellectual ass and defend an increasingly untenable position (e.g. French at Dien Bien Phu), possibly by referencing historical events that have no bearing on the present discussion.

I won't quote your reply, in case you wanted to keep your specific comments confidential, but I think that it's only fair to respond to your valid critique about my comments that implied that the French enjoyed greater "liberty" than Americans did, at least in the realm of protesting.

To make my point (and organize my scattered mind) I'll argue the following:

1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.
2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force
3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.
4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, protests are more controlled within this state - especially since greater stability in existing institutions provides greater contrast when order breaks down, and a potentially greater backlash because the government's legitimacy is undermined.

I try to articulate my thoughts a bit more on this.

1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.

"Liberty" is a sensitive topic. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. Maybe my mind linked it to something I read in Prof. Wright's class - philosophy of liberty and equality - in which John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty" discusses a lot of interesting principles - including the harm principle. Basically, one option of setting the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is to constrain, regulate, or otherwise ban actions that harm anyone else. Self-harm (e.g. suicide) is difficult to regulate, not only because enforcement of law on dead people is difficult, but because it is seen by many people to represent a paternalism that encroaches on the individual's rights to govern his or her own life (however horribly a job the individual may do) provided that such injury doesn't lead to harm of others. What this means is that we can do whatever the hell we want to ourselves (drink, smoke, work in the lab 14 hours a day), provided it doesn't harm others (drunk-driving, second-hand smoking, child neglect, if we have dependents).


2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force

The monopoly on force that has been the core of the legitimacy of the state since 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia), and articulated in state theory since at least Locke. If you can't defend your territory, you won't be able to provide your citizens with the freedom to worry about longer-term goals like growing food, designing spacecraft, urban planning, etc. In other words, you will remain in a very primitive societal and economic structure, in which any additional resources are devoted to security until the condition of sovereignty is established.

Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" (Interesting comment in response: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1492) Stalin could not have asked this before 1648. During the Middle Ages, the Pope did have military forces under his control, though his true power involved the split legitimacy (temporal (worldly), and ecclesiastical, (spiritual) ). So what? Well, if hearts and minds matter, then it means that individuals or groups whose hearts and minds belong to someone else might be a threat to the social order. The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 came at the end of the Thirty Years War, an extremely bloody religious-political conflict in which a third of "Germans" were killed. It was recognized by all military/political leaders that this split legitimacy wasn't working, and that the only way to end the mutually destructive conflagration was to create the nation-state as the unit of the international system. Individual leaders would align themselves with the Pope or Luther, but the heads of state would not interfere with the internal affairs of areas considered the domain of other heads of state. Transnational ideas like Protestantism and Catholicism were to be used by the political leadership, but strict domestic security needed to be enforced. Cultural and religious homogeneity helped ensure stability, but for the regime to last, primary allegiance was to the leader, not to the Pope. (Walsingham was evil, but he and Elizabeth did what they needed to do to keep England free and unified).

It's hard to imagine a society that exists in which the state government doesn't have a monopoly on force, yet enjoys sufficient legitimacy to govern. I suppose this would be federalism or empire, though I think our own history as a nation, the history of most empires (Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, British), and even the present situation in Iraq indicates that without the monopoly of force - the stability of security - it is impossible for the government of the state to enjoy legitimacy. A monopoly on force appears to be a necessary - though not sufficient - condition to making laws that matter.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." These words from the Declaration of Independence avoided the dustbin of history because the British were unable to maintain a monopoly of force.

3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.

I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.

The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders. The FBI has national jurisdiction, and though Law and Order illustrates that conflicts between jurisdiction between federal and local authorities do exist, it rarely comes to the point of violence. My American History isn't so great, but I think that 1957 saw the last gasp of state control of force coming into conflict with the feds, and even then, the Arkansas National Guard deferred to the federal deployment of National Guardsman during desegregation under Eisenhower. (http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org/legacy/ike0003.htm)

I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.

The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders.

4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.

The French definitely have their problems. We don't quite have a 10% unemployment rate (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/france-pays-price-of-liberal-jobless-benefits/2005/08/30/1125302569771.html), and I think in the French banlieues the unemployment rate was approaching 50%. By contrast, Pomona seems to be around 15% (http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Pomona-California.html). Caution: I think the French calculate unemployment differently than the US - I'm too lazy to get the facts, but I think the US does not count those who cease to qualify for unemployment benefits after a certain time (like the homeless people we used to feed), while the French may allow people to collect benefits nearly indefinitely.

When a state like France can't deliver on basic things like jobs, an inability to control riots illustrates the weakness of the state, the infringement upon individual liberty and property, and the delegitimization of the governing party - or in extreme cases (like Soviet Communism), of the government structure as a whole. Similarly, I think it would be fair to say that the recidivism of Russia into authoritarianism illustrates the delegitimization of post-Soviet democracy, in which democratic government was unaccompanied by greater control over the privatization process and generation-long efforts to develop democratic institutions.

Qualitatively, there appears to be a greater domestic security apparatus that helps regulate protests and helps them avoid things like the torching of property. I recall a NYTimes article mentioning that during the riots, the rate of torched cars was roughly twice that of an ordinary night. That means that if Paris was burning during the riots, it half-burns on ordinary days.

I've got no stats on the American side for comparison. But the only events in recent memory where there were comparable levels of civil disorder were in LA during the Rodney King riots, during some extended blackouts during the summer, and whenever the Lakers won (we're such fair-weather fans).

America has enjoyed relatively stable economic growth. We have enjoyed fairly good domestic security - Europe and Russia have been dealing with Islamic terrorism well before 9/11. We have food, we have security, we have religious freedom. Consequently, we can pursue careers, argue about the finer points of science-faith issues, discuss the role of national debt on science, etc. We depend on an array of networks and institutions - from high-speed internet to grocery store supply chains to the liberalized financial markets that let us borrow money for school, consumption, homes, and cars.

For the most part, awareness of those networks and systems is unnecessary. After all, that's why system administrators, engineers, CIA analysts, Wal-Mart operations researchers, and investment bankers are paid. As groups, we are far more risk-averse, and as groups do not want to either engage in extreme violent conflict with the police or otherwise engage in activities that mean long-term risk - existential, financial, or social - to our existing interests. I don't know if it's because we're so rich that populism has lost its wind - the last time there was this level of wealth inequality in this country was in 1929, yet protests about poverty are much lower in frequency and intensity now than a few decades ago.

My French friend was fascinated by the idea that the American dollar is fiat money - that is, nothing is underpinning the value of our currency than the confidence that we have in it. Maybe I've been spending too much time with STS people, but social constructivism as I understand it - the social construction of reality based on shared norms and social interactions, rather than some "external", "objective" measure - is imbedded even within our very economic system. Yes, quantitative metrics can determine whether the valuation of the dollar relative to the yuan (renminbi?) is representative of an optimal trading system, or if a given stock is overvalued compared to its industry counterparts, and yes, the damn code either compiles or it doesn't, but ultimately a great deal of what we depend upon - the dollar, the state, and even the value and stability of my own mind - is supported by confidence, individual and shared, and a complicated, convoluted, and probably undemocratic and dynamic process of consensus norms.

It's scary when we think about how dependent we are upon the smooth functioning of various extremely complicated systems - and this fear has been motivating Richard Garwin, a high-level science advisor to many administrations who spoke recently at Cornell about the need to develop an effective emergency action plan in the event of a nuclear terrorist attack in Manhattan - he puts it at roughly 20-50% in the next couple years. One of the barriers to this is the illusion that absolute security is possible. It's a politically intractable problem. How do you convince the public that you can't provide absolute security, that you need to devote money to preparing for the event of a major terrorist attack, where without adequate preparation, more people could die from hunger, panic, and lawlessness than in the original attack.

But the main point is this: America is strong, rich, and powerful because it has delivered, its citizens believe in it, and no other nation appears (yet) to marshal the coalition of personal resources (that underpin our intellectual, financial, martial and physical* resources) needed to compete with US power at the global level. And we have been able to do this because America has made good on many of its promises to its citizens. It's not quite, "we are rich because we think we are rich and think we want to be rich", but as absurd as it sounds, it's not too far off. We can focus our mental energies toward making the nation - as a motley crew of interests united by an overall self-interest in the maintenance of American power - stronger, richer, and smarter because security is guaranteed. And security is guaranteed by our continuous efforts along these lines. Chalmers Johnson says, correctly, that "Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever." But, to a large extent, so long as we believe in the possibility of a measure of security, and that our leaders are pursuing policies that do not reveal gross domestic signs to the contrary, we will not take to the streets, we will not burn cars, we will not give up HBO to read Mao's Red Book, and we will not be wrong in our refusal to sacrifice a measure of calculated ignorance for a measure of unreasonable paranoia.

I would argue that all of these things make protests in America far more controlled, and far less effective as an instrument of change.

(*physical resources are something in that world that social constructivism fails to account for, though the decision to exploit domestic reserves of coal, uranium, etc and form agreements with partners which possess strategic resources is subject to some elements of social construction.)

Our time at HMC provides an interesting example. During our time there was only two major protests that I knew of - one was against the Iraq war, and one was in support of Kerri Dunn. Both of those events were very orderly, limited to a few hours, and - damn it - were characterized by a few left-wing individuals who believed so much in institutions that they felt that top-down approaches were the only things that mattered. Remember SLAM? Remember that their platform and mission focused on getting the administration to sign a letter? This is not the platform of a revolutionary group - this is the platform of a group who, inspired by fiery rhetoric and revolutionary fervor, still trusted the process, and still possessed enough sense to see the power of institutional legitimacy compared with a few angry students. I was swept up in the fever like everyone else - but at no time did I feel that the institution had, by a failure, become irrelevant. Cosmetic changes may have been needed, but in the end, we trusted the Judiciary/Disciplinary Board with what could have been its most important decision to date - on the fate of those participating in the cross-burning - and we trusted the academic leadership enough to not turn them out of office. No one, to my knowledge, lost their jobs, though I and many others may have lost our sense of rationality.

As such, I no longer trust the protest to become the prime tool of social change. The uncoordinated violence of the banlieues cannot be tolerated in America, pre- or post-9/11. Organization of course matters, but the insurgency lies within ideas and economics, not Molotov cocktails.

Post-script: How did I do on the intellecto-arrogantometer?

+ 5 used unnecessary word in another language to show off, and maybe disguise the fact that I'm a monolingual American chauvinist.
+ 10 word described above is French
+ 5 used a case study
+ 5 x 2 = 10 cited a website for statistical data
+ 10 trivialized legitimate grievance of disenfranchised minorities and their use of violence to articulate their discontent
+10 quoted a vogue liberal decrying American Imperialism (though nowhere is it written in this essay that I think the American Empire is more bad than good)
- 10 didn't cite a source from the acceptable literature
- 10 Didn't use LaTeX
- 10 stated clearly a caveat concerning different measures of unemployment
- 2 was too lazy to check above caveat and resolve it
+5 somewhat quotable closing to the essay