The Real Estate Tax Problem

There are several truths about the estate tax that need explanation. The first is that this tax affects less than 2% of the population. The second is that virtually no one, like with the income tax, pays the actual rate delineated by their assets. But there is a problem with the tax. As can be seen below, at the extreme end of the spectrum, taxes as a percentage of assets actually decrease. This, in my view, is the trouble with the Estate Tax. Its greatest purpose, in my mind, is not to generate revenue, but to prevent the formation of an oligarchy in this nation. Those who would lambaste the government for some sort of authoritarianism inherent in taking some of the fortune of the deceased should consider price in freedom society’s pay when too few accumulate too much wealth. Consider the price that Florence paid at the hands of the Medici, or the price Rome paid for the Juliae. If there is anything history teaches us, it is that Republicanism and inherited privilege cannot long coexist.

A New Voice

Due to various time constraints placed upon me in the past few weeks, I have been unable to update TQA at a regular frequency. To help me address this problem, and to add a new perspective to the postings, TQA now has a third contributor. The two entries below are both courtesy of nkrosse. As readers may no doubt notice, there are some areas in which our views are something less than equivalent. Occasionally I may offer a repartee to some of his more contentious points. This should be interesting.

Letter to New Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates

The Hon. Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC
20301-1000

Dear Mr. Secretary:

It came to my attention today that President Bush has asked you to come up with a plan to increase the size of the military. Besides reinstating the draft, which is politically infeasible and contrary to our nation’s ideals concerning freedom of the individual, the only other option that comes to mind is allowing more people to serve by removing or relaxing barriers to enlistment. From my research and understanding, since the War in Iraq began, the US Army has raised the maximum age one is allowed to enlist at, lowered the minimum IQ score one is allowed to enlist with, and looked over the criminal records of enlistees who have committed violent crimes, all while maintaining the ban on homosexuals serving openly in its ranks.

Surely criminals with violent records pose more of a problem in our armed forces than homosexuals who serve openly. Contrary to what many highly ranked military commanders may say, allowing homosexuals to serve openly would not affect the military in a negative way. The Israeli military, which must deal with and combat terrorists and terrorist organizations for nearly every day, allows homosexuals to serve openly and without consequence (to either soldiers or the security of Israel). Any arguments concerning “unit cohesion” are not only absurd, but also harmful.

It has been noted by many that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” policy, in forcing service members who are gay, bisexual, or questioning to keep their status hidden and “live a lie,” is representative of a greater problem in our government, that is a lack of candor. Mr. Secretary, I saw your confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and my first impression of you was one of great awe and respect for the openness that you showed the committee and to the American public as well. Why would you implicitly ask any of your subordinates to exemplify anything less, especially when they wear the uniform of the greatest military the modern world has seen? Mr. Secretary, I respectfully ask that you recommend to the president in your plan to lift the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow all qualified persons to serve in the military without having to keep secret an essential part of their identity.

Sincerely,

Ideas for the Estate Tax

The late, great Milton Friedman once said of our tax system, "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non work." Today, the federal government taxes estates of people who are worth over $2 million at a rate of 55%. Now, I agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes', Jr., sentiment that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, but the way our government taxes those who have led successful lives is imprudent and unfair. The estate tax exists (or should exist) to tax capital accumulation over one's life (i.e. earnings that come from sources that have not been taxed already). It is entirely possible to be worth $2 million at the time of your death and to have accumulated most of that wealth through income, which, I believe, is already taxed at an exorbitant rate (more on that another day). It would be more prudent for Congress to raise the estate tax deduction to $25 million (the point where, today, one begins to earn more money from dividends and capital gains, which are virtually untaxed), and to lower the rate of taxation of estates to one closer to the highest tax bracket on income (which, if I remember correctly, was around 35% in 2006). This solution is, I believe, not only the best for our nation, but also a good compromise between those who wish to completely eliminate the estate tax and those who wish to maintain the current and harmful status quo. Let's hope incoming Ways & Means Chairman Charles Rangel can make this a higher priority in the new Congress than reinstating the draft.

Progress?

It seems that now that the Democrats actually have some power, I can think of nothing to do but criticize them. But I suspect a certain amount of dissension, both ideological and strategic, can actually be beneficial to the party. So bear with me as I once again commence in what seems to be becoming a recurring pattern. On November 8th, I was optimistic about Nancy Pelosi's coming Speakership, but recent events have made me a little apprehensive. There was Pelosi's ill-advised effort to elevate Murtha to the post of majority leader, but there are also less publicized items. Pelosi has the authority to chose the leader of the House Intelligence Committee, and the logical choice for the job is the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman. While Ms. Harman may be more independent than Pelosi would prefer, she is intelligent, hardworking, and a far superior choice than Pelosi's preference. Alcee Hastings, a man who was impeached and removed from a judgeship in 1989 for attempting to secure a $150,000 bribe. Perhaps I am judging the Democrats too fast, but it is precisely because of the fact that a party elected last week already is trying to get officials who are corrupt into leadership roles, and expending political capital in power struggles, that I am a little worried. Of course I am glad the Democrats won. Divided government is a tonic that can help revive Washington when it is mired in corruption and inactivity. After all, liberalism is an ideological, not a partisan, system. Progress does not require absolute control by a single party.

Now What?

Well, the Democrats pulled it off. So the question becomes "what happens now?" Well, there are certainly things the Democrats definitely shouldn't do. There has been talk of replacing Howard Dean on the DNC with Harold Ford, who is coincidentally out of work just recently. Dean's cardinal sin, in the eyes of Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, appears to be that he dared to try and carry forward his 50 State strategy with a congressional election coming up. As we all know, these congressional elections happen only every other year. The time Dr. Dean should have executed his 50 state strategy is right now, after the elections. Ah, but the race for the White House has begun. I suppose Dr. Dean should have postponed his long term plans until after 2008. Of course, then he should really be starting to recruit candidates for those all-important 2010 midterms. Perhaps it would be most convenient for the DSCC and DCCC if Dean would execute his 50 state strategy on a day in January in 2009 and a day in December of 2012. Because Mr. Emmanuel would really like some of that money being used to build permanent field operations to run high-impact attack ads three election cycles from now.
I fear that the Democrats are going to get the wrong message from these elections. Their victory tends to obscure the fact that the party still has some very serious problems that are going to have to be addressed eventually. This victory was decidedly not an affirmation of their ideology, or their organizational skills. But this election has brought encouraging signs. The Democrats have what can now veritably be called the big-tent party. Many commentators have misunderstood the results of this election. It is not that more moderate Democrats were elected (although many were) than it is that a larger variety of Democrats were elected. The challenge for the leadership is going to be keeping the party unified after an election when Bob Casey and Jon Tester ran and won under the same party. But this is what all political majorities must do. If the Democrats want to keep their majorities for the long term, it is important that they keep the very different types of people who voted for them unified in pursuit of common goals. When the Republican coalition lost this degree of unity, they lost their majority. The Democrats have been primarily united by a dislike of incompetence and corruption in the Republican Congress and White House. But these factors aren't long term unifiers for the party. Another unifying force is going to have to replace dislike of a nonexistent Republican majority, and soon.

Eyes on 2006: State Legislature Edition

I often reprimand pundits for focusing on big-name races to the exclusion of all of the many other complicated elements of politics. So it would be hypocritical of me to do a series on a short-term event (when I have said that is precisely what we do not need to focus on) without taking a look at the one area that may have the longest lasting impact on our nation. Most people's contact with this part of government is quite limited. We see the candidates lawn signs in median strips on the road and think to ourselves "who is that guy again?" Let me be clear: State legislatures may be unglamorous, but they are very, very important. The states, after all, have great powers, and the legislature is usually the most important organ of the state government. Remember the 2002 Texas redistricting debacle? Well, it never could have occurred had the Republicans not taken control of the state house for the first time since reconstruction. Should the Democrats come a handful of seats short of retaking the House this November, you can thank the 30% or so of Texas voters who bothered to show up and vote in an "unimportant" local contest in 2002. In two years time we have a Presidential election. States have extraordinary powers in determining election procedures, and even who is enfranchised, in their state. It is difficult to predict what will happen in elections for 99 separate state bodies. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature) There are no polls to look to, after all. But my hope is that the Democratic mood permeates down to this level. The future of the country may hang on it.
Update: The Democrats made signficant gains in the state legislature, as in other areas. The Democrats have taken about 275 more seats across the country, and gained control over both houses in four legislatures and one house in four others. I will discuss this more in my first major post-election posting.

Eyes On 2006: Connecticut Edition

Ah yes. Connecticut. In so many ways, the political conflicts shaping up all over the country are exemplified by the Nutmeg state. There are three races of national significance in Connecticut. The three-way Senate race, the Second Congressional District race, and the Fourth District race. On the surface, Connecticut seems like a state comparable in its liberalism to its neighbor Massachusetts. But despite massive political majorities in the state legislature, and an electorate that reliably goes Democratic in Presidential races, Connecticut voters are deeply independent. Republicans control most of the Congressional seats, and have controlled the Governor's mansion since 1986. Connecticut has only supported the Democratic ticket nationally since the Clinton era. Any recent gains for Democrats in the state have less to do with demographics and more to do with the demise of the moderate wing of the Republican party. If the economic makeup of the state was a good political indicator, it would probably be more Republican than Wyoming. But these Republican moderates are not quite an extinct breed. Jodi Rell, Christopher Shays, and Rob Simmons all continue to hold office in the state of Connecticut. It is Shays and Simmons who may soon become politically extinct. In 2004, Diane Farrell came within 4 points of defeating Shays in one of the wealthiest counties in the United States, and she plans to defeat him this time around. Rob Simmons may be in even more danger than Shays. His seat is considered a "toss-up" by the NRCC. Then, of course, there is the race between Lieberman and Lamont, round two. Oh, there's a Republican also, but he has single-digit support. (Wish Schlesinger the best of luck, by the way. He can only take away votes from Lieberman) While the control of the Senate does not really hinge over this race (Lieberman will probably caucus with the Democrats if he wins) it is in many ways the most important. A Lamont victory will represent a major blow to the Washington establishment of pollsters and pundits that was allowed to call the shots throughout the nineties as the party's infrastructure withered away. That is really what this race should represent in the eyes of the American political class. But Connecticut has never been enthusiastic about party politics, and my bet is that come November, the voters are going to make their decision based on how they judge the personal merits of their Senator, and their Congressmen.

Life on September 12th

Last night the President spoke from the Oval Office upon the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11th. He took the opportunity to discuss his Iraq war and his particular doctrine of spreading freedom in the Middle East. If President Bush would have simply said this short statement, it would have been an improvement on his 15-minute speech.
Five short years ago, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center. That morning our collective national stupor perished in that towering inferno which claimed so many of our countrymen. Into the void where our illusions used to be came a new feeling: fear. Fear consumes all. It replaces rationality with brashness. Our fear in the days and weeks after September 11th knew no logic. I told Americans that we were in a struggle for survival. I was wrong. There will be other attacks; many more innocents will loose their lives. But even the worst attacks that any group can perpetrate could make even a dent in the strength of the single most powerful society in the history of the world. Only Americans truly posses the power to destroy this new colossus. Our republic shall prevail so long as we ourselves do not relinquish our liberties in the face of terror. The greatest leaders of this nation were never Caesars or Bonapartes. Our great spring from the tradition of Cincinnatus, reluctant in starting war, fierce in fighting it, and rejoicing in peace. Five years after the collapse of our myth of invulnerability, it is time to once again make a choice. Shall we conquer our terror? Or will we allow terror to conquer us?

Enlightened Self Interest

In what is part of a growing trend across Democratic America, California has once again decided to take advantage of its right to enact policy independent of that of the federal government. The matter at hand is emissions ceilings, specifically the fact that they are not low enough. The old arguments for both sides of the environmental debate were on display as California moved to cut its emission by 25% by 2020. But there was a very strong argument on the side of the environmentalists: the fact that California's water supply depends very much on the rate at which the state's mountain ice-packs vanish in this coming century. California is no stranger to environmental ills. Even the tribes who inhabited the Los Angeles area before the arrival of the missionaries had to deal with smog from their fires being trapped by the mountains which surround the area. So it is somewhat fitting then that California enact some of the most stringent emissions regulations in the nation. And as the old maxim states, "as California goes, so goes the nation." Well, perhaps that is not such an old saying. On the surface this seems ludicrous. California? California can seem so different from the rest of the nation that we forget that it's just ahead of the curve. Culturally this is immediately obvious if you think about it. Fast food, surfing, (and by extension board sports of all types) Hollywood, agribusiness, Disney, megachurches, several different types of music in poor taste, (sorry, but good music mostly comes from the Southeast) highways (actually we got these from Germany) sprawl, strip malls, and, of course, politics. It is that last one that I am concerned with. For the past few decades, California has indeed led the way. Think of Proposition 13, or Proposition 187. The modern conservative movement is based out of Orange County. (And you thought the worst thing they produced was extremely bad television!) The issues that matter in California become the issues that matter for the country in a few years time. That is why I am optimistic about recent trends in the Golden State. Although, to be honest, I think they should have kept Richard Nixon to themselves.

Eyes on 2006: Ohio Edition

As the 2006 elections fast approach, it is time to begin my coverage of the races that may make the difference in November. The first stop is Ohio, a so called "bellwether" in American politics. This year in Ohio, there are two big races, one for the Governorship, and one for the Senate. Governor Bob Taft is not allowed to run again, so the contest will be between Ken Blackwell, the Ohio Secretary of State, and Ted Strickland, a member of the House of Representatives. Ken Blackwell has the dubious honor of being called the Katherine Harris of 2004 for his stringent voter registration requirements which removed thousands of peoples from the voting rolls. (More on Ms. Harris later) Some Democrats have gone so far as to say that Kerry would be in the White House now were it not for Mr. Blackwell. But residual Democratic anger from 2004 is not one of Blackwell's big problems. Instead, Ohio, like much of the nation, is in a fairly anti-Republican mood at the moment. While elsewhere incumbency and unmatched candidates will mean Republicans will hold on to their seats, in this open election between two strong candidates, being a Democrat may be the critical advantage in the race. In the Senate, Mike DeWine is fighting for his political life against Representative Sherrod Brown. Unlike in the race for Governor, DeWine's downfall may come from the conservatives in his own party. DeWine has exhibited something of an independent streak of late. He was one of the 14 Senators who formed the compromise on the Judicial filibuster, incurring the wrath of the Right. I predict that the Democrats will ultimately prevail in both races.

Hail Malthus

Since the publication of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared
Diamond has become one of the nation's foremost public intellectuals. He is probably one of the few people living today who can decide to write "a short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years" and actually pull it off. So when 69-year-old Jared Diamond decides to spend several years of his life writing a massive treatise on the environmental impact of human societies, it is definitely a good idea to pay attention to what he has to say. In this work, Diamond moves closer to the Social Sciences than he ever has before, to the point where he makes some (delicately worded) critiques of the Bush administrations environmental policies. But diamond is, first and foremost, a natural scientist. Interestingly, his science background results in what I think is a very materialist political philosophy. This manifested itself in Collapse's section on the Rwandan Genocide. On the surface, this terrible event resulted from the Hutu's longstanding hatred for the minority Tutsi. But then Diamond brings in a conundrum: an ethnically homogeneous Hutu village where mass killings nevertheless took place. (Note: In this area Diamond is mainly relating the research of other scholars, who he credits in the book) The real culprit in Rwanda? Overpopulation. Diamond shows, quite convincingly, how the increasing population density led to ever smaller plots of land for the farmers of Rwanda, how land became an object of tremendous conflict. This in turn exacerbated strife between those with less (often Hutu) and those with more. (Often Tutsi) Ludicrous, I thought. What about The Netherlands? What about Singapore? I thought Diamond's concern about global population was alarmist, a throwback to concerns about expanding third-world populations a few decades ago. But, in the end, Jared Diamond struck an optimistic tone. He related the story of his visit to the Netherlands, where he was told about a storm surge in the 1950's. It was devastating. The floodwaters killed over 2,000 people of all walks of life. The citizens of the Netherlands realized that they had to work together in order to survive, because the threat of oblivion hangs over all of the citizens of The Netherlands, so matter how rich or powerful they may be. It's a piece of wisdom our own leaders should absorb. For while the powerful do not care when the Lower Ninth Ward floods, they may realize the threat that looms over all civilizations if the waters from the East River enter the UN Security Council chamber.

The Curse of Abundance

Something about the recent conflict in Lebanon continues to bother me. In fact, something bothers me about the many conflicts centering around Israel and Lebanon over the last 60 or so years. The problem is that none of these conflicts, not even the present one, have much to do with religion at all. The problem with the current conflicts in the middle east is that the region is cursed with a vital natural resource. Valuable natural resources are one of the worst problems to ever plague the nation-state. Must-have resources from oil to diamonds to opium, bring blood to the land they occupy. It is supposedly a fact of life that with disturbance in the Middle East, oil prices rise. But what if we are reversing cause and effect? Take, for instance, the 1973 OAPEC oil embargo. On the surface, this is a clear instance of cause and effect. The Yom Kippur War was the proximate cause of the embargo, and thus the spike in oil prices. But the root instability in the region, and across the third-world, was due to oil. Facing stagflation, Nixon made the decision to end the gold standard. While this was good for American industry, the value of raw goods produced elsewhere began to depreciate. While the dollar fell, so did the price of oil. The economies of Israel's neighbors suffered, and instability increased. Ergo the Yom Kippur War. I doubt the current conflict could happen without the price of oil where it is at now. Iran fills Hezbollah's coffers with oil money. Ahmedinejad has the audacity to do this because he knows rational Westerners can do little to retaliate without disturbing world oil markets further, and incurring the wrath of Russia and China. Oil is not only haunting the Shiite crescent. Another big supplier, Sudan, has literally been able to get away with murder because of demand for crude. China has (so far, at least) essentially obstructed efforts by the Security Council to take action on the genocide in Darfur because it needs new oil markets. Do we live in an era of religious fanaticism? Perhaps. But surely God is not the cause of oil nearing $80 a barrel.

Geeks Unite!

Allow your eyes to wander over to the right side of the screen and a link proclaiming "Save The Internet!" meets your gaze. Yes, I am talking about the principle called Network Neutrality, which has governed the World Wide Web since its inception. Net Neutrality commonly refers to a series of agreements between Internet Service Providers, (often your local phone or cable company) online service providers, and users of the internet. These agreements ensure an equal level of service to all internet users. But a cadre of special interest groups are pushing Congress to abandon the regulations that allow us to use the internet uninhibited. In its first decade of serious use, the government has done a surprisingly good job of keeping the internet free and open. We all know the economic, as well as communication benefits this as given our society. In a time with increased media consolidation, the internet is one of the last figurative n"public squares" open for the general public. To begin offering two tiers of service is a step down a slippery slope, which leads to a world where what we see on the internet is controlled not by us, but by large corporations, much like TV today. Of course, this issue is actually quite complicated, and the motivations of some groups in supporting neutrality are questionable. Still, the fact remains that without it, the internet would be something very different from what most United States citizens have come to rely on daily.

Well Well....

I am back from my break, and quite a bit has happened while I was gone, it seems. Israel has taken upon itself to launch a war, and Iraq, not to be outdone, has what can fairly be called a real civil war on its hands. But back in the States another civil war has sprung up. It seems to be taking place here in Connecticut! Yes, out here among the Mercedes SUVs and country clubs, (not to mention abject poverty) the battle over the future of the Democratic Party is taking place. It seems that other bloggers have done quite a bit to elevate Mr. Lamont's challenge to the national stage. I was surprised to read that Mr. Lamont's once-Quixotic effort has propelled him slightly over Lieberman in the polls. It now appears that Lamont may actually win the primary. If someone had told me that six months ago, I would have laughed. Which is itself an encouraging sign, regardless of who comes out on top on August 8th. It gives me encouragement that perhaps we aren't doomed to a mediocre Presidential contest in 2008, between candidates who are too afraid to suggest any real ideas. After Bush's 8 years, it will be no time for leadership by sound bite.

A Break

I will be on vacation for the next three weeks, so TQA is going to go on hiatus. It is unlikely I will have computer access for much of the time.

Who Needs Florida Anyway?

A reader has recently brought a (non-scientific) article to my attention criticizing Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps Mr. Shepard (who has no connection I can see to the scientific community) should see the movie himself. Most previews don't do the real thing justice, especially if the real thing is more like a power point presentation than an action-packed thriller. To his credit, Shepard does not deny the fact that temperatures are increasing. Yet he does misrepresent the scientific community. Virtually no scientist contradicts the consensus on global warming. Out of over 900 scientific papers in 2004 on global warming, none opposed the consensus view. The 2001 IPPC report declared that "most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." The article also goes so far as to question Gore's images of the snows of Killimajaro, because the melting began in the mid 19th century, before SUVs, we are told. Of course, the mid-19th century was also a time when entire cities in England were covered in coal soot. And yes, there are natural cycles of the presence of Carbon in the atmosphere, but as the chart to the right shows, our levels are unprecedented for even the hottest times in the history of the world. You see the little dip between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago? Look hard, because that was the last ice age. There are a few comparable spots in history dispersed over millions of years where climate change has been so dramatic. All periods of mass-extinction, of course. And yes, the handful of scientists who question this consensus have gotten flack for being in the pocket of big oil. This is mostly because it is true, with the exception of Richard Lindzen, who really just doubts our ability to accurately predict the net effect of future increases in Carbon levels. And there is disagreement over how much the earths temperature will change, but even the most conservative estimate (2 degrees Celsius over the next century) would have dramatic repercussions for the earth. Of course, An Inconvenient Truth is much more convincing than I ever could be. It is highly recommended, even for you, Shepard.

President... Al Gore?

Buzz has been steadily building over a prospect that a few short months ago I would view as unthinkable. That’s right, the growing clamor for former VP Al Gore to make a White House bid. On the surface it is unbelievable that New York magazine could feature a massive photo of Mr. Gore with the title “The Un-Hillary?” This appears preposterous when one considers the fact that Gore routinely underperforms Clinton in polls against possible GOP contenders and electability meters. But see his new movie An Inconvenient Truth, and the reasons for the hubbub become apparent. I think Gore’s long absence from the world of expensive consultants and vacuous slogans has done the man some good. He speaks with passion and humor, and he even looks better. And most importantly, he inspired genuine enthusiasm among my fellow viewers. This is a rare thing indeed among democrats. And I would be a hypocrite to exclude Mr. Gore solely because of a few poor ratings. After all, this author has stated in the past that a noble yet hopeless crusade may be just what the party needs.

President Bush's address

President bush has just announced a plan to send national guard troops to the US-Mexico border."I-In Mexico, there are lots of... Mexicans. And Mexicans, they isn't Amuricans, beause... only Amuricans can be Amuricans... otherwise they're not Amuricans, they're Mexican, or Russian, or, or Italiish. Or is it Italican? Shucks, I can't remember now. Anyway, the point I;m trying to make is that Mexicans ain't Amuricans. They don't even speak Amurican! They speak Mexican! Now, I'm not saying the-there;s anythin' wrong with the Mexiquats... I love Mexicanian culture, I- I'm a big fan of... burrrritoes. (That's called rolling your rr's, an important part of the Mexicali language) And -and quesadillers... . But mainly Dos Equis. Boy do I love that Dos Equis! As they say in Mexicania, "me liko." Of course, after the whole "llama incident" Laura doesn't let me drink anymore. Heh heh heh."Later, Homeland Secretary Secretary Michael Chertoff was asked about the plan."Some have claimed that putting 6000 troops isn't going to change anything along a 1200 mile border. These traitors also point out that if you really wanted to come here you could hop on a boat, travel a couple miles and land write next to Joe's Crab Shack at Laguna Beach. These people are idiots. Look, I am the Secretary of Homeland Security. It is my job! Look, I know there's only 6,000, but we're giving them binoculars. This means that they can see further. We also invented an "immigrant trap." We place a fish taco or other delicious example of the Mexican cuisine out in the middle of the desert, but it causes a trap to fall on the immigrant until an INS official can extract him! See you guys? We will think of anything that doesn't work. I meant everything that does work. What I'm trying to say is that we're thinking, and thinking is good. Look, don't you think I know what I'm doing? Briefing is over, no further questions."

Democratic Renaissance?

It is increasingly suggested amongst political philosophic (particularly aligned to leftist policies) that the Democratic Party has strayed much too far to the right to be more appealing electorally - at the expense of its general values. In fact, some would go so far as to say that the Democratic politicians of late have alienated many of their leftist constituents to a breaking point. One thing is clear: the Democrats need to reassess, if not completely reinvent their political agenda and ideals. But how to do this? One need only refer back to the turn of the previous century. Year - 1896, location - Chicago. The Democratic Primary Convention. From reconstruction, the party had been dominated primarily by the Bourbon Democrats - conservatives and generally, products of the local political machines. Among this crowd was incumbent President Grover Cleveland. However, the issue of currency was on the lips of all: Gold Standard or Silver Fiat? Emerging at the convention was middle-aged William Jennings Bryan, Congressman from Nebraska, who demonstrated his support for Silver with incomparable vigor. Following his immortalised "cross of gold" speech, he solidified the Democratic agenda for silver, and won the hearts of many Silverite Republicans. He not only won the Democratic, but also the Populist nomination. Bryan's 1896 strategy was to appeal to the agricultural staple of America. When the dust settled, he had picked up the entirety of the Agricultural West and South, areas predominantly Republican today. However, this did not win him the presidency, for his Republican Opponent had the backing of big business and thus was able to win the industrial majority areas. What Bryan failed to see was that he needed to appeal not only to the farmers, but the industrial labourers in general in order to win. Only with the support of the general working class can a claimed "Party of the People" hope to achieve its ends."Thus, the Republicans gained the West in following elections, but not without due consequence. Bryan's defiance of the Bourbon Democrats and move of the party to the left began an irreversible Progressive Era, which would hold great prosperity in the years to come. His actions paved the way for the Democratic success stories of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. The modern Democratic Party must learn from these great examples of the past and take up the Progressive Stance once again. It will gain them the support of an entire nation. The word 'Democrat' now has many denominations. If the party were to specify itself to one issue in particular, and refocus its ideals, it will accomplish its goals with broader appeal. Though not suggesting another Henry A. Wallace Presidential Candidate, the notion of an Independent Progressive Party would be a clever scheme for the Democrats.
-The Resident Historian

A Different Approach to Immigration

Our broken immigration has gotten some much deserved attention of late. A draconian House bill was introduced, inspiring a mass popular upsurge of supporters of immigration rights. But the national debate has become dominated by oversimplification and clichee of the worst sort. Political debate can be summarized in a handful of points. The only solutions being put forth seem to be a guest worker or amnesty program, turning the border into a DMZ, or both. This is an issue which seems to inspire more ho-hum political discourse than any other save the most absurdly oversimplified issue of all: abortion. In an attempt to subvert the dominant paradigm, I am going to shed light on a less well known proposal, creating what I like to call an "Amerizone." Since NAFTA the US, Mexico, and Canada already exist in a common trade zone. What if we took this a step further? Complete free movement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Europe has shown that such an arrangement is no longer in the realm of fantasy, and if anything, North Americans have more in common with each other than some residents of the "European State."

Effective Management?

Today I introduce a new contributor to TQA. Resident historian Max will scour the pages of history in search of events or trends which our relevant to our own time. Of course, his views may not always represent my own.

If history has anything to teach the masses of political theorists, it is that sustained growth and dominance is only suitable with proper distribution of population over vast territories. As the United States continues to employ its self-granted privileges as the global superpower, it must follow the lessons of past powers, and utilise these lessons to maintain its status of potency. Two primary examples to this objective are the British Empire, and Imperial China. The British Empire is known to have been the largest and among the most effective empires in history. This is mainly because of population distribution. The size of the isles are no larger than the state of Colorado, and yet produced an empire of enormous magnanimity. Why? Basically, it is because of luck and management. The British are extremely lucky to live on the Isles. The location has the densest cache of raw industrial materials of anywhere in the world, comparable only to Germany's Ruhr district. This bounty of resources, in combination with high population density, allowed Great Britain to manipulate and monopolise on industry early on, and get a head start on the Industrial Revolution. This makes it surprising that they were not the first European power to begin colonisation. Britain had very limited success early in the colonial era. They did not even begin to colonise until a century following Columbus, and therefore were left with comparatively small swathes of land. But, this was good for the British. Their industrial might allowed them to expand their military and seize necessary bits of land from other powers. Further still, this lack of land proved good for the British to create a densely populated North American colonial system, which created greater urban/industrial growth. The British colonies were far more advanced and populated by 1750 than all of the other European-American colonies combined. Even following the decline of colonialism, the British Commonwealth is an economic juggernaut due to the early achievements of the British Empire. China is the disaster story of Imperialism. Unlike Britain, China had great resources at their disposal, but all inland, which was not populated enough to capitalise on the boon. China had an immense population, but all located on the agrarian Eastern Seaboard, a trend that even today continues to segregate China into two different worlds. Furthermore, China's immense size made it extremely difficult to govern effectively. Although the Zhou Dynasty brought about Feudalism two thousand years before Charlemagne, it was this decentralisation of a vast territory that brought about the Warring States Period, which made the Zhou Emperor, King of a duchy the size of Connecticut. This is a trend that plagued all of the dynasties from the Shang to the Mongolian Yuan. The last two dynasties, the Ming and the Manchu Qing, did not suffer from decentralisation, only because they were propagated by the Europeans."It is speculated that had the Chinese Emperors not continually tried to spread their ideals to their neighbours (much like the U.S.), China would be just as large in sphere of influence, and hundreds of years ahead in technology. Even today, the problems of China continue. It is a rising power, but only because of the investment of globalizing industries seeing the advantages of Chinese low labour laws. Any businessman will tell you that the Chinese people are successful. The average Chinese labourer will say otherwise. If the United States of America is going to continue to impose its ideals upon the world through military support, it should consider how it was successful in the first place, and what it should do to maintain this success, as it directly relates to the activities of its predecessor, Great Britain, and its possible successor, China.

A New Feature

With this posting I inaugurate a new feature to the blog: The Occasional Review of Books. As the name suggests, I will write about a significant political book from time to time, but by no means on any sort of schedule, and only occasionally. Today, the work in question is Niall Ferguson's Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire.
If anything is to be said of Ferguson it is that he has a remarkable candor. The man is a unabashed proponent of a liberal empire, and he believes the United States is the only world nation currently able to fill this role. Ferguson seems to have a degree of nostalgia for the bygone days of his nation's empire. In chapters of the book he argues something that for the past few decades has been unthinkable in mainstream thought, that former colonies of the third world would be better off if they were still colonial possessions. Other comments of Ferguson are equally taboo. He essentially advocates for gutting the welfare state to bankroll American neo-Colonialism, but unlike fellow supporters of a militant Pax Americana, Niall Ferguson says what he means and means what he says. A passage that really came as a shocker to my sensibilities was this:
"There is undoubtedly something perplexing about the apparent lack of American combat-effective troops... [I]f one adds together the illegal immigrants, the jobless and the convicts, there is surely ample raw material for a larger American army... Reviving the draft would not be necessarily unpopular, so long as it was properly targeted." (292)
Even Dr. Ferguson realizes in the end however that the United States is unlikely to live up to his image of a great and terrible new imperium. The part where the reader is supposed to be alarmed, the "fall" in the books title, is when Ferguson informs us that Americans simply lack the correct character to invade and subjugate foreign nations. And I am relieved to say that I agree with Niall Ferguson. I for one would much rather see the United States as a sort of benign Santa Claus figure than Darth Vader with an American flag lapel.

Europe's Last Dictatorship

As expected, the recent elections in Belarus were a sham, returning the incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko to office with over 80% of the vote. The problem in Belarus is that it is virtually impossible for the opposition candidates to have an effective campaign at all. The state-owned media gives virtually no coverage to the opposition, and the opposition has been essentially prohibited from campaigning. It is expected that international observers will soon call the election unfair. The international community can not stand by and let this Orwellian shadow of democracy suffice once again for the people of Belarus. It is important that the United States considers punitive action against the government of this nation. Soon we will find out if President Bush truly supports freedom for all peoples everywhere, or if, as the case of Pakistan and other "allies" suggests to many, the United States only supports liberty when it is convenient, not when it is right.

Part Three: One Thousand Little Battles

What I am talking about is actually quite simple, when it boils down to it. Controlling a branch of government can be all well and good, but when we talk about control, who do we mean? The Democratic party? The usual answer is yes, but it is not because we like the neat mascot. No, it is because the party represents liberalism, at least for the time being. This may not always be the case, nor has it been in the past. The Democratic Party is a political instrument, no more, as is the entire system of government by professionals the liberals of the past set up. No, in the future, it is prudent to often bypass the federal government entirely. This is why I urge democrats not to put much faith in 2008. Firstly, because it seems unlikely that any individual from the left side of the isle can capture it. Secondly, when it comes down to it, they wouldn't be able to do a heck of a lot anyway. I can think of only two men who have that special personal power which distinguishes the Great from the mediocre. Men who, in this era of stalemate, could actually be somewhat effective presidents. Neither are Democrats. Great people do come along, but I certainly don't think Hillary Clinton is one of them. At the Federal level, Democrats should mainly act as a stopgap, aligning with more States Rights and Libertarian Republicans to prevent right-wing reactionaries from imposing Federal will on the States and on individuals, whether this entails stopping odious court appointments or repulsive Constitutional amendments. Progress should be made in a thousand little battles, not one large one. It is time for Democrats at the State and local level to take control of their own destinies, whether it be through the State Capitol or the local union.
And as for 2008? Working under the presumption that the Democrats are bound to lose,* 2008 should be a time to go out with a bang, advocating for issues. My own suggestion would be to nominate Russell Feingold, a surefire loser, but a great man, unlike most of the other scumbags in the Senate.

*There is the possibility that they might win. If the Republicans nominate Bill Frist, Jeb Bush, or Newt Gingrich (manna from heaven all three) my pencil sharpener could win.

Part Two: The Quagmire of Freedom

Further indication that Republican gains are transitory and rather small are evident. 1936, the year of Roosevelt landslide re-election, saw a Senate elected with 75 Democrats. By contrast, when Bush eked out a second term by the smallest margin in history, the balance of power after 2004 was shifted from 52 Republicans to a mere 55. To give some context to the events of 2004, consider the history of the past decade. Republicans saw their power continually decimated until 2000, a year which showed almost perfect division within the electorate. The advent of global war allowed the Republican party to gain a small line of support. Now, looking at 2006, it seems as if Republicans small gains may be eroded once again. Party identification has been shifting towards the GOP over the decades, but the Democrats still have a six point lead over Republicans. While the Democrats are unlikely to take Congress, a highly plausible net change of 4 governorships would put a majority of those into Democratic hands. I think it is fair to ask a quite simple question:

What is going on here?

Two adjacent Presidential elections being this close, control of Congress being so narrow for such a sustained period. These are phenomena most pundits have dismissed as mere anomalies.
But what if they're not? Here is a hypothetical: what if Democrats do well in 2006 and congress is back where it was two years ago? What if in 2008 the electoral map is virtually identical to that of 2000 and 2004?
The years after the end of the New Deal Democrat era have seen no major changes in the nature of government. Any bold new initiative has been shot down. Think Clinton's (or Nixon's or the US Congress's in the 70's) health care plan, think Bush's social security scheme. Even Ronald Reagan, probably the most effective President since Johnson, was able to do little more domestically than cut taxes and temporarily reduce domestic spending by a small amount. The last three decades have seen only one Amendment to the US Constitution. (A fairly technical and ineffectual one at that)*
Here is a crazy thought: Americans have become too good at politics. We have done the unprecedented in this nation, turned the exercise of Democracy into a multi-billion dollar industry. Perhaps no single politician or political party can gain enough traction for any long enough period of time to make a sustained impact on society.
What this means is that we are, in fact, fighting a costly yet bloodless trench war in this nation, a quagmire of freedom. In the coming years, should no one party gain control over the goverment, something will have to give.
Yet both parties are preoccupied with fighting the next battle instead of winning the war. We have become stuck in the biennial mindset. I have heard much musing over the coming elections in 2006 and 2008. But what about 2010? What about 2014 or 2018 for that matter? It will take long term thinking to escape from the quagmire of freedom. So, what exactly does this entail? I shall give some examples in my next posting.
*Granted, the purposes of the 27th (preventing Congress from raising its pay between elections)are noble, but in practice the Amendment is often circumvented through "cost of living adjustments."

A Republican Era? (Part One)

It has now become almost cliche to say that the United States has entered a republican majority political phase. In the past, political scientists have identified 3 or 4 decades of party supremacy followed by a realigning election. A classic example of a realigning election is 1932, the year in which Democrats swept every single (political) branch of federal and state government. Traditionally a realigning election has displayed very clear across-the board change from the local dog catcher to the White House. Before I stated three or four decades, but some claim a more exact figure: 36 years, which seems an impossibly accurate. But the logic is compelling:
1786-1824: Nation's founding to birth of Jacksonian Democracy
1860: The Republicans come to power only four years after their birth as a party, ending Democratic dominance.
1896: McKinley defeats Brian, in an election that changed not the party in power, but the ideological emphasis of both parties.
1932: Rise of the New Deal Democrats
This list is not without controversy. Some consider 1800, for just one example, to be a realigning election. It is important to consider whether realignment is even a legitimate concept at all. These dates may just be artificial benchmarks to give some shape to history. But any disagreements over those debates pale in comparison to the controversy over modern elections. Following the bizarre 36 year pattern, the next realignment date would seem to be 1968, followed by 2004. Indeed, many have suggested that 1968 was such an election. But the supposed Republican backlash that year did not manage to gain control over any part of government besides the Presidency. A good measure of a party's relative power is the five part measurement, looking at not only the Presidency and the two houses of Congress, but the governorships and control of state legislatures. 1980 and 1994 have both been suggested as other possible realigning years, but it was not untill 2002 (excluding a small time in 2001) that the Republicans actually had a majority or control in all five of the bodies of power previously mentioned. When looking through the long view, Republican claims seem less plausuble. The question remains though, what has happened in the last three decades?
-To Be Continued-

The Thoughts of a Soldier

An American soldier wrote this while stationed at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. I can not claim to speak for either him or the United States military. I realize that no one individual, be it Donald Rumsfeld or a soldier on the ground can speak for the United States as one voice. I encourage you to consider his reflections.

1) This is not Vietnam. Here, we don't call 'em "gooks" but haji.
2) U.S. Army and Communism
-you wait in line for everything
-they listen to your phone calls
-you're not rewarded based on merit
-it's a hierarchy; it's about who you know
-you're a number
-the system screws you
-you are not trusted, they are not trusted
-freedom of speech is censored.
Zogby has just released a poll of United States military personnel in Iraq. The poll shows that only 23% felt that they should stay "as long as they are needed." Perhaps support for the war is not as uniform in our military as the pundit class would have us believe.

Where Neo-Conservatism Errs

In recent years the idea of conditional sovereignty has come to play a significant role in the foreign affairs of the United States. Roughly put, the State is not legitimate if it does not meet one or more of the following criteria:
-The State does not follow the rules which govern international bodies
-The State poses a threat to other nations
-The State violates the fundamental rights of its people
These actions, in the view of some, constitute a violation of the conditions surrounding sovereignty akin to a violation of the Social Contract. Case in point: the invasion of Iraq. Long after the "imminent threat" rationale for the war has been debunked, its supporters still continue to justify it upon humanitarian grounds. And whether or not they admit it, this argument troubles most American liberals. They recall Mogadishu and Belgrade, and wonder if perhaps their aversion to the imperial venture in Iraq might be nonexistent had another man been President. This of course leads to the vexing moral question: Why shouldn't it be acceptable to intervene in other nations to support the principles which Liberalism so avidly defends at home? Those who oppose Bush's neo-welcoming foreign policy have no trouble attacking its failures, but what should be proposed instead?
The non-partisan organization Freedom House recently released an interesting report entitled How Freedom is Won which reaches some interesting conclusions. To encapsulate, the report explains how grassroots, non-violent civil disobedience is the best method for replacing a tyrannical regime with a free one. A regime change that uses violence, unsurprisingly, "is significantly less likely to produce sustainable freedom."
Does this suggest that the best course for the United States in promoting Democracy is to in effect completely remove itself from world affairs? By no means. Instead, it means looking to avenues other than the US military to help spread human rights. The State Department and NGOs can do much more to help human rights around the world. And on an individual level, there is much citizens of the free world can do. Think of the worldwide effort to end apartheid in South Africa. Our government could do tremendous good by ending the double standard which props up states like Egypt and Pakistan while preaching of the virtues of Liberty. And most of all, remember that the most powerful leverage the United States has is still its economy.
So, my message to President Bush is this: soft power isn't only for sissies. The dollar can speak much louder than even a supersonic fighter jet. And you're a lot less likely to get someone hurt.

Please Don't Do This

Well, the polls are clear. It seems almost certain that the Democrats are going to nominate another surefire loser in 2008. One thing pundits, voters, or even candidates themselves never seem to get is this: A Senate seat is a terrible springboard to the Presidency. There are numerous theories for why this is so, (nature of parliamentary leadership, voting records, etc) the the fact of the matter remains. Just look at the evidence.
US Senators who have obtained a popular vote victory in the race to the White House:

Warren G. Harding

Those who have tried: (Only in the general election, and who were Senators at the time!)

DeWitt Clinton
Rufus King
Henry Clay
Daniel Webster
Hugh Lawson White
Henry Clay (again)
Lewis Cass
John Bell
Stephen A. Douglas
Rutherford Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Warren G. Harding
Robert LaFolette
John F. Kennedy
Barry Goldwater
George McGovern
Eugene McCarthy
Walter Mondale
Robert Dole
John Kerry

And who are the top four contenders for the Democratic Nomination?
By averaging together polling data, Wikipedia has come up with this list:
-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
-Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
-Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
-Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
It is not that none of these Senators can win, it is that it would be difficult for any of them to win. There are exceptions. John McCain (if he could win the primaries) is supposedly untouchable, and Barak Obama (in a few years time) would make a great candidate. But by and large, the Senate is the stepping stone into obscurity. Democrats hoping to take back the White House might be better advised to look to Eliot Spitzer in a few years. Albany has been a proven training ground for excellent candidates. (It gave us four Presidents, including both Roosevelts)

Mediocratic Media Morons

Once again, the West has shown its miraculous unfailing ability to misunderstand the Muslim world. This time the issue at hand is the supposed "clash of civilizations." In its latest reincarnation, the "clash of civilizations" is over a series of cartoons that would be unremarkable were it not for their tasteless depictions of the prophet Mohammed. With no context provided, it would seem to the casual Western observer that the entire Muslim world has erupted into irrational fury over a series of images that would be unremarkable had their subject been Christ, and their location the Museum of Modern Art. Let me be quite clear:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A SERIES OF DRAWINGS
Yes, these drawings were a proximate cause, but they were really just a small match which ignited a powder keg of abuses and frustrations built on top of one another. Had the Muslim world been reacting solely to an intellectual exercise in free speech in an obscure Danish publication, these protests would have ocurred months ago back when the cartoons were published. Most residents of the Middle East live under some of the most venal, tyrannical, and incompetent regimes on the planet. Daily life for Muslims world over is an exercise in frustration, sheer frustration as tangible as hunger or thirst. By all rights the oil-rich Middle East should be the wealthiest place on the planet, but instead it is one of the most wretched.
Under the circumstances, claiming that these are caused by cartoons is absurd, equivalent to saying that people leave a burning theater because they were offended by the play.

I Really Shouldn't...

I really shouldn't do this, but I can't help myself.
Ahem,
"President Bush did not learn for several hours that Vice President Dick Cheney was the shooter in a hunting accident in South Texas on Saturday afternoon that left a prominent Austin lawyer and Republican campaign supporter wounded by shotgun pellets in the neck, shoulder and chest, the White House said today."
NY Times, 2-13-06
I'm sorry, but did he mistake 78-year old Harry Whittington for a small bird? The article goes on:
"Mr. McClellan was questioned intensely by the White House press corps today about why the White House never released the information itself and why it was left to a private citizen to report to the world that the vice president of the United States had been involved in a shooting. They also seemed frustrated that Mr. McClellan could not tell them exactly when Mr. Bush learned that the vice president himself had shot Mr. Whittington."
I can just picture the way this will play out.
NY Times: February 16th, 2006
"Democrats on the hill today sharply attacked the administration for alleged failures regarding the Whittington affair. 'Cheney is a complete idiot.' Said Minority Leader Harry Reid. Mr. Reid continued 'he's also bald and ugly.' Karl Rove, in a speech to a group of Republican pollsters, responded that democrats are 'really big losers. They think they're cool, but their clothing is old, and nothing they say is funny. Their donkey mascot is also really lame' Howard Dean later called Mr. Rove 'a douchebag,' and said that the Republican elephant obviously 'is morbidly obese'"
NY Times: February 28th, 2006
"The Senate has begun closed door hearings over whether or not the Republican Elephant is or is not morbidly obese. John McCain (R-AZ) has joined Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) in a bipartisan call for candor on the part of the president on this all important issue. 'Is he or is he not obese Mr. President?' Thundered John Kerry during a speech yesterday... "

Again, I apologize, but this really was such an easy target.

Premier Posting

This blog is, for anyone interested in knowing, primarily political. As an American Liberal I espouse the philosophy of the United States Democratic party. At the same time, however, I hope to bring a unique perspective to the political discourse. Chances are that at least 50% of my opinions are wrong anyway, so I can afford to express unorthodox viewpoints. The name of this blog refers not to any lack of boldness or excess of reasonable thought on my part, but to the fact that a political journal with virtually no readership is a lonely voice in the wilderness indeed.
Wish me luck.