Category Archives: politics
Particular political issues – a response to Al
Al listed some issues that he counts as “conservative”, and invited me to comment on them. I’m just going to comment here on my own views on each issue, not on whether they count as definitionally conservative or not.
Al’s list: “lower and less progressive taxes, more spending on defence, police and prisons, sympathy for the death penalty, reluctance to control guns, less spending on health and social security, less spending on state schools and the encouragement of private alternatives, more restrictive immigration, “no” to gay marriage or to any form of equal rights for gays, less regulation of business to help the environment or to protect workers rights or consumer rights, less regulation of financial markets, less subvention, freer trade, more restrictive abortion laws.”
My stance:
lower and less progressive taxes I’d be in favour of a flat-rate tax;
more spending on defence, police and prisons yes, but tied in with a large number of structural reforms, especially with regard to the reformative elements of the prison system. I’m not in favour of prison for non-violent crime, especially as prison is presently constituted;
reluctance to control guns I’m presently thinking about the implications of remedying the disempowerment of the general populace, which may or may not involve armaments;
less spending on health and social security as I see it the issue is not about the level of spending but about a) how the spending is sourced, and b) how it is managed and spent. I’m in favour of a more intelligent structuring of health spending (NOT shifting to a US system, which I think is bonkers). I think there is a debate to be had about emergency care and chronic care, in that the former I see as being essentially free at point of need, the latter I’m not so sure about;
less spending on state schools and the encouragement of private alternatives I’m in favour of a voucher system, which gives parents more power, rather than being beholden to the producer interests;
more restrictive immigration yes, especially from Islamic countries. I’m a big fan of the US system of immigration, ie having to sign up to a framework of values;
“no” to gay marriage or to any form of equal rights for gays I’m in favour of full legal (secular) equality for gay people/ gay couples;
less regulation of business to help the environment or to protect workers rights or consumer rights I’m in favour of businesses being required to operate within the constraints established by their local community; they must certainly operate within the law; I’m also strongly in favour of proper cost-benefit analysis being done on proposed regulations;
less regulation of financial markets financial operations need to operate under the same law as anything else, eg contract law; beyond that I’m not sure what regulations are at issue;
less subvention yes;
freer trade yes in principle, but I don’t see free trade as an idol to be pursued at all costs, as in practice ‘free trade’ can be a total misnomer;
more restrictive abortion laws yes.
Who should pay for the helicopter?
A group of friends are climbing a mountain in the Alps. There is an accident, a fall, and one man breaks his leg. The emergency services are contacted; the injured man is airlifted out; he heals; all is well.
Who should pay for the helicopter?
I would have thought that some form of insurance or tax on the people who walk in the mountains, which pays for the helicopter, would be a workable and sensible arrangement.
What I don’t think is sensible is a tax on the general population to pay for the helicopter – not only are the general population not involved in the Alpen pursuits, but a general tax is something extorted by force.
[And the reason I don’t think extorting things by force is any good is because it destroys the moral fabric. This is why I’m a conservative on general principles.]
The difficulty comes with, eg, a single mum in poverty. Should there be a general tax to help her? Is it a fair analogy to compare an Alpen walker who breaks his leg with a single mum?
What I would not dispute is that there are circumstances where it is not just morally right but morally imperative to offer support to a single mum. What I question is whether that support should come from a central government relying on enforced taxation.
So the real question is: how far should people be expected to bear the consequences of their actions? In the case of Karen Matthews, for example, it’s not clear to me that government support was helping. Put crudely, central government is too remote and coarse grained to help in a situation where the wider culture (especially the moral or ethical culture) has broken down. In such cases it is more important to establish a moral framework than to give out cash.
I do believe that a Christian approach is one based on grace rather than merit, so there isn’t just a bias to the poor, there is a bias towards mercy rather than condemnation. What I don’t believe is that this mercy should be distributed via the state (as opposed to, eg, the local church).
In other words, I would agree that despatching the helicopter is a Christian act. What I don’t agree with is a general assumption that the best way to provide the helicopter is by a centralised state.
“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.” (2 Thess 3)
TBTM20081212
TBTM20081210
TBTM20081202
TBTM20081128
I’m astonished by the arrest of Damian Green. Cranmer picks up one of the essential elements. Mind-boggling.
The Political Brain (Drew Westen)
Very stimulating application of contemporary research into the emotions (something I’ve had a long standing interest in – see, eg, here) to the political sphere in the United States. I particularly enjoyed the dissection of the Gore-Bush debates, and the plausible explanation of why Bush “won”. Clearly a big influence on the Obama campaign – let’s hope that Palin reads it too, although she seems to be a natural at most of it. Highly recommended.
On President Obama (4)
One of the earliest things that I disliked about Obama’s political stance was his support for subsidies to ethanol producers.
This wasn’t just because I tend to disagree with subsidies generally but because of the havoc that such subsidies cause on the food market, as can be seen from the rise in the price of wheat recently. The policy which Obama supports is directly responsible for the immiseration of millions. (For more detail on just how scary the situation is, see Stuart Staniford’s article here.)
I tend to see this as a perfect example of government intervention – a well intentioned act that goes wrong. Where we have room to become even more concerned is with regards to protectionism, in particular, whether Obama, perceived to support protectionist policies, is likely to sign into law another Smoot-Hawley tariff act.
So my issue with Obama is whether he will try to use the powers of government to escape from the crisis in such a way that the problems become worse. That is, will he understand the problems clearly enough to recognise that central control is not a viable solution?
The energy crisis is the most severe problem faced and, as exemplified by his policy on ethanol, there is little sign that Obama understands the extent of this. (This may, however, be due to electoral calculation – we shall see what he really believes when it comes to making decisions, eg on the future of GM/Ford etc – see below.) His language about “a rescue plan for the middle class” is, however, ominous for its inappropriateness. There is no way in which the middle class of the United States can be rescued, and to make that a principal soundbite from his earliest press conference is deeply disturbing.
The model or prior example that is generally being referenced in present day discussions, especially about economics, is the experience of the 1930s. In particular I have a strong suspicion that Obama sees himself as following in the footsteps of FDR, who actively used government intervention to ‘prime the pump’ to get the economic system running again.
This ignores several things, things which are rather important.
The first is that FDR faced no shortage of resources. There was abundant energy available, along with raw materials and, in particular, the government was solvent. Given the effective bankruptcy of the US it seems unrealistic to expect Obama to have enough finance to achieve his aims, not least if the US dollar collapses in value.
The second is that, by the time that FDR was elected, the shape of the crisis was clear. I am not persuaded that Obama has a decent understanding of the predicament that he is inheriting, and nor do the American people (or most other populations come to that) – that is, I think he needs to ponder Dmitri Orlov’s work. We will see very early on whether Obama ‘gets it’ when we see how he treats the car industry. Either he will actively try and reshape it towards extremely efficient cars and (more importantly) a retooling towards massive investment in public transport, especially rail – or he will try and keep the system going for a little longer. If he chooses the latter then he will fail, miserably.
Consequently, thirdly, I expect the Obama campaign to try and act dynamically and aggressively, using the levers of government, to try and change things around. In this endeavour they will fail, because the wires connecting the levers to the parts of the engine have been severed. One of the principal impacts of Peak Oil will be the hollowing out of government. In such a situation the political future belongs to someone who can bring Clint Eastwood’s desires to fruition: “I wish there was a Libertarian candidate who would put forward a more Libertarian point of view – leave people alone, don’t put so much regulation on them and live within our means. Everybody’s going to have to go back to that.”
It is possible that Obama will realise that this is the situation early on in his first term of office and that he will then use his considerable rhetorical gifts to persuade the US people both of the magnitude of the tasks that face them, and their ability to meet those tasks. I suspect that he won’t be able to do such a thing however, which is the burden of my next and final post in this sequence.
On President Obama (3)
I want to pursue my last point in a little more detail, with an example of how Obama is a “normal” politician, and this is to do with the funding of his campaign.
Obama was the first candidate since the time of Watergate not to accept public financing of his campaign, and this reversed his earlier commitment to do so. This made perfect short-term sense and allowed his campaign to outspend the McCain campaign culminating in the purchase of prime-time TV slots for his half-hour ‘infomercial’.
I don’t have a particular problem with this – and a good argument could be made for seeing the abandonment of principle as ‘worth it’ given the imperative of changing the political establishment. Simply put – there was a fight and Obama won, pretty much the end of the story.
Where I start to demur a little, however, is in the rhetoric of ‘small donations’ that Obama uses. According to the Washington Post, “only a quarter of the $600 million he has raised has come from donors who made contributions of $200 or less, according to a review of his FEC reports. That is actually slightly less, as a percentage, than President Bush raised in small donations during his 2004 race…” In addition, there have been some question marks raised about the propriety of his internet fund-raising – that is, even though the claim is for many more people offering funding as individuals for his campaign, clearly some of them were fraudulent.
In other words, Obama is just as much a creature of ‘big money’ as any of the Republican Presidents of recent years. The ‘big money’ may come from a different area, but this is not ‘new politics’. Indeed, considering the close connections forged by Obama with the Chicago system it seems clear that Obama is gifted at working an existing system. That is a good augury for the professionalism of his administration and we can expect him to be a competent president in a way that, eg with the response to Katrina, George Bush wasn’t.
Hopefully that’s enough – without getting into the more murky waters of his background – to show that Obama is a “normal” politician, one with immense gifts in that regard which have led him to where he is. My disagreements and concerns about an Obama administration lie in a different area, which is what I shall pursue tomorrow.