Economics, Literature, Politics

Freedom

Free Photo: Path Through Debris, Galveston Hurricane

(Translated from the German.)

In the waiting room of the hospital sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who is in pain and seeks to gain entry to the hospital.

“Anyone may enter the hospital,” the gatekeeper tells the man. “All you need do is enter through the emergency door.” She gestures toward a wide, swinging door at the far end of the waiting room.

The man approaches the emergency door, then turns back. “How much will it cost to enter through this door?” he asks. The gatekeeper says that there is no way of knowing the cost before the man enters. She encourages him to enter for the sake of his health. “We can settle the cost afterward,” she smiles. “We are not barbarians, after all.”

The man returns to the gatekeeper’s desk and asks her if there is another way to enter the hospital. Continue reading

Standard
Law, Politics

Negotiation Theory Argues for Constitutional Hardball Against Trump

Free Photo: Home Being Moved

In a 2004 article, the constitutional law scholar Mark Tushnet described the rise of what he called “constitutional hardball.” The article draws attention to a phenomenon that has become even more prominent in the United States over the ensuing thirteen years: the use of “political claims and practices … that are … within the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine” but that nevertheless conflict with prior assumptions about how things are supposed to work–the assumptions that “go without saying” in a working system of constitutional government.

A historical example would be Roosevelt’s court-packing plan. Already in 2004, Tushnet described a number of more recent examples of constitutional hardball by both Democrats and Republicans, but primarily by the latter–the Democratic filibuster against Bush’s judicial nominees in 2002-2003 and the Republican response, moves in Colorado and Texas to revisit districting decisions after the 2000 census, and the impeachment of President Clinton.

Many Republicans would argue that President Obama engaged in constitutional hardball by circumventing Congress through executive actions. Even if this is granted for the sake of argument, it would be hard to deny that the radicalized Republican Party of recent years has engaged in an escalation of constitutional hardball with no modern precedent. These hardball tactics include the transformation of the Senate filibuster into a hurdle for routine legislation, the Republican decision to hold hostage the nation’s credit by threatening to default on the debt, the unprecedented refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and the North Carolina legislature’s recent attempt to rewrite the powers of their Governor after a Democrat won the office. The list could go on.

The most important example, I would argue, was the general Republican refusal to engage in ordinary legislative negotiation with Obama throughout the course of his presidency. As Mitch McConnell famously stated in 2010: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Republicans carried out this strategy for the next six years by vocally opposing virtually every initiative supported by the President, even those policies that Republicans had supported before Obama and now support again under President Trump, such as infrastructure investments.

McConnell understood a central fact of contemporary American politics, one backed by social science studies and now confirmed by the success of McConnell’s strategy. This fact is arguably the central fact of contemporary American politics, along with the phenomenon of partisan polarization grounded in antipathy for the opponent’s party. As Jonathan Chait has repeatedly, persuasively reminded us:

The truth is that voters pay little attention to legislative details, or even to Congress at all. They make decisions on the basis of how they feel about the president, not how they feel about Congress. And a major factor in their evaluation of the president is the presence or absence of partisan conflict. If a president has support from the opposition party, it tells voters he’s doing well, and they then choose to reward the president’s party down-ballot.

In fact, voters “are so single-minded in their focus on the president that voters actually base their vote for state legislature on their assessment of the president.”

Welcome or not, this is a fact of contemporary American political life. Voters will reward Democrats in 2018 and 2020 for opposing everything that Trump and the Republican Party attempt to do between now and then–and punish Democrats for any perceived Republican legislative or executive victories. Despite what voters sometimes say in surveys, they will not reward Democrats for cooperating to get things done. No one is actually paying attention to that.

In addition, there are only so many seats in the Senate and the House: a win for Republicans is a loss for Democrats and vice versa. Partisan representation is a zero-sum game, with no possibilities for mutual advantage through negotiation.

As a result, Democrats have an obvious self-interest in opposing congressional Republicans and Trump on every possible front, including the forms of constitutional hardball that Republicans used throughout the Obama presidency. The most obvious and important example is Democratic refusal to vote for Republican legislation, including legislation that Democrats might support based on its substance alone.

Another example would be Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Democrats have an interest in obstructing the nominating process through every means possible, using whatever flimsy justification comes to mind. The justification would certainly be no less flimsy than the one used by Republicans to obstruct Garland’s nomination.

But sensitive, fair-minded, principled Democrats may hesitate to embrace such a flatly oppositional approach–as Senator Schumer and no doubt many other moderate Democrats appear, very much, to be hesitating. If Democrats begin to play routine constitutional hardball just like the radicalized contemporary GOP, descending to their low game rather than rising above the fray, what will become of our constitutional system?

Once the unwritten norms of fair play and settled tradition are routinely, unapologetically violated, will the Constitution not cease to “make politics possible,” leading to a serious constitutional crisis?

Continue reading

Standard
Economics, Law, Politics, Religion

This Has Never Happened Before

Free Photo: Arica After 1868 Earthquake

Soon, a corrupt, emotionally unstable demagogue and white nationalist fellow-traveler will be inaugurated as President of the United States. He will be supported by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, and, soon, the return of a Republican majority on the Supreme Court. He will also have the passionate, unwavering loyalty of a mass following that believes even his most outlandish lies.

Donald Trump’s assumption of the presidency poses the greatest threat to our country of any event in my lifetime. In a future post, I hope to collect in one place what seem to me the best proposals for protecting the United States by opposing and resisting the Trump presidency on every front.

In this post, I would like to consider the stakes of the coming months and years.

The dangers of this presidency have no precedent in modern American history. Since the United States became a global military power, not to mention a nuclear power, no President has been remotely as emotionally unstable, unqualified, hostile to democracy, or allied with enemies of the United States as Donald Trump.

I will offer only one example, focusing on the last point. Our incoming President has openly taken the side, against citizens of the United States, of a hostile foreign power that attacked them. Donald Trump has openly and unapologetically sided with an enemy of the United States against the American victims of the enemy’s attack.

Nothing like this has ever happened before, to my knowledge, in American history.

It is now known that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed attacks on American computer servers and released emails stolen from Americans in an attempt to increase Trump’s chances of being elected. The incoming President has long been pro-Putin—most likely a result of his longstanding, repeatedly announced admiration for authoritarian tyrants, his many business dealings with Russian oligarchs, his susceptibility to cheap flattery, his sympathy for Putin’s anti-Islamic ethnic nationalism, and his unwitting reliance on Russian-funded news media and advisers in the pay of the Kremlin.

Instead of condemning Russia’s violations of the rights of fellow Americans, the incoming President defends Putin. Trump is openly and unapologetically on the side of a foreign enemy that attacked Americans.

Day after day, month after month, year after year, Trump continues to defend this petty tyrant and butcher who promotes ethnic hatred around the world, who has had journalists and political opponents jailed and killed, who has stolen billions of dollars from his people, who is responsible for mass atrocities in Syria and elsewhere, and who recently invaded and occupied a sovereign European state. Putin is not only an enemy of the United States. He is an enemy of the human race.

This is the man that Donald Trump, our incoming President, has praised and continues to praise. An attacker on the United States. A foreign enemy.

Our incoming President supports the butcher Putin, praises him, and defends his illegal interference in our elections and his crimes against our fellow citizens. Our incoming President’s party remains largely silent in response to this unprecedented betrayal of the United States.

This has never happened before. What will happen next?

Continue reading

Standard
Politics, Religion

America, you broke my heart

Image result for american flag on flagpole black and white

I always knew there was a risk in loving you. Everyone knows there’s a risk when you love.

But I wanted to believe.

All the songs tried to tell me. And my friends tried to tell me. They said you couldn’t be trusted.

I said that was all behind you. It was in the past. You had changed.

And then I woke, in the middle of that night, and I saw your message on my phone. And I knew you were back to your old habits. Continue reading

Standard
Law, Philosophy, Politics

When to support a war: consequentialist + deontological justification

Free Photo: Lusitania at Pier

I’ve been meaning to write a quick post about the question of when a nation should go to war, and when it should not — and in particular, under what conditions the United States should use large-scale military force against another country. I don’t mean the question of whether a war is legal under the international humanitarian law governing jus ad bellum. I mean the question of when large-scale military engagement is a good idea, something that the public should support. It’s not inconceivable that there are situations when military force is a good idea even though the legal basis is unclear or lacking — such as Kosovo in 1999, or maybe Libya in 2011 — and there are also, certainly, situations when the legal grounds for a war exist, but going to war would be unwise — such as attacking Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea last year.

Based on the armed conflicts involving the United States during my lifetime, it sometimes seems as though the wisdom of entering or not entering an armed conflict gets determined in retrospect, based on how the war turned out — which doesn’t seem like a useful or fair standard for judging wisdom. No one seems particularly bothered about Desert Storm, looking back, although many progressives at the time (including, for example, Joe Biden) opposed military intervention. On the other hand, many people seem to feel that the United States should have intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide, although there was no great progressive push to do so at the time. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion, looking at attitudes toward U.S. uses of force over the last few decades, that we tend to treat decisions about wars as good decisions when they turn out well, and treat them as bad decisions when they don’t. But we often can’t know in advance how a war, or the choice not to go to war, will turn out — wars are notoriously unpredictable, and often develop their own momentum, and motivations and expectations frequently change — so how are we supposed to decide what to support beforehand?

The idea I’ve been meaning to post is an answer to this question. It’s a fairly simple one, and it may already appear somewhere in the literature on just war. But I’ve never come across it before.

Continue reading

Standard
Economics, Politics

Can progressives exploit national security fears too?

Free Photo: Men Working in an Aluminum Factory, Boring Holes in Armour

President Obama recently made a speech to graduates at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, arguing that climate change is a national security issue. This is an argument that the Pentagon made in a report last year. Many others have been making it for over a decade.

I’ve often thought that progressives who care about climate change should make the connection to national security more often, in an attempt to appeal to the values of cultural conservatives — although there will of course be limits to the persuasiveness of such an appeal if conservatives perceive it as coming from liberals.

More generally, what President Obama might call “a whole host of”* progressive policies could be advocated on national security grounds. This casts a new light on several previous arguments that have appeared on this blog.

Continue reading

Standard
Philosophy, Politics

Recognition in the Hierarchy of Political Needs

Free Photo: School Students in Bleachers, Forming the American Flag in 1910

This is another post in the series exploring the idea of a hierarchy of political needs. Can we better understand political change — and, in a democracy, voting behavior — by thinking of voters as a kind of “body politic” motivated by a relatively stable hierarchy of concerns, with national security above the economy, and the economy above largely altruistic concerns such as responding to the risks of climate change?

After writing the first post, it occurred to me that there might a political concern that trumps even national security: roughly speaking, what Thucydides called “honor,” what Hegel called “recognition,” and what is sometimes discussed today using terms like “cultural identity” and “dignity.”

Continue reading

Standard