Category: Politics

Sometimes, the loss of logic to partisanship is embarrassing, as evidenced by this editorial attempt to justify Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney’s recent lawsuit to force the Massachusetts legislature to vote on a petition:

Mr. Romney’s case isn’t expected go very far. Aside from the obvious separation-of-powers problem, Mr. Romney is asking the same court that imposed same-sex marriage three years ago to parse his constitutional logic. Like a second marriage, expecting the court to allow a rebuke of its earlier decision is a triumph of hope over experience.

But Mr. Romney’s case does have one salutary effect. He filed suit against the Legislature not for failing to endorse a ban on same-sex marriage, but for using a series of procedural moves to avoid voting on the issue and thereby keeping it off the ballot. Mr. Romney’s lawsuit is, therefore, an attempt to use the state’s high court for what it has heretofore resisted being: A bulwark for democracy.

Because Massachusetts’ Constitution requires votes in favor of an amendment from only one-fourth of the Legislature in two successive terms to get it on the ballot, the governor would likely win the fight if only the Democratic leaders of the Legislature would allow a vote. But the real target here isn’t the judiciary or even the Legislature. Mr. Romney filed his case in an attempted to push the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion. And he’s thinking well beyond the confines of Massachusetts–where voters are eager for an opportunity to weigh in on the issue–and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials.

So many problems, in too few words. Primarily, it’s fascinating that the writer somehow believes Mr. Romney is promoting democracy by being an activist executive. Clearly the so-called activist part of recent judicial decisions isn’t the issue, as much as it’s the outcome. Activist is as activist does. And voters are eager to vote on this. Populism at its best. Very presidential, indeed.

But, just for a moment, let’s consider how democratic it is to require one-fourth of the legislature to vote for an amendment to put it on the ballot. In no political philosophy have I ever seen 25% equated with democracy. Rights should never be up for a popular vote, but if you shoot for it, at least have the decency to pretend like you care about a majority rather than some divinely-inspired “truth”.

Rep. Charles Rangel is calling for the return of the draft. This isn’t the first time, as Rep. Rangel discussed this during the 2004 election. But the populist rhetoric this time around is worth debunking.

“I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session,” Rangel said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. “If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft.”

Hello, we’ve already tested the theory that politicians wouldn’t get us into wars if their kids or the kids from their communities were in danger of being drafted. Considering that he’s calling for “national service” in the military, schools, hospitals, etc., is there any reason to believe that those in power won’t pull strings to get hospital rather than front line duty? Rep. Rangel should look no further than the current (and preceding, for that matter) occupant of the White House for evidence. Not that I’m condemning a refusal to acquiesce to forced servitude in the armed forces, but Rep. Rangel wants to ignore the obvious.

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who will be the Senate majority leader, agrees that the U.S. military is stretched too thin and that “the burden of meeting the nation’s security has not been shared equally by all segments of our society,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. But Reid “believes that these problems are best addressed by making needed adjustments in the all-volunteer force,” Manley said.

So, if what Rep. Rangel, and Sen. Reid to an extent, is saying is true, is it any less likely that the poor over-represented segments of society will be any less represented in future wars? Please. The military is as subject to free market principles as any other arena of life. If the correct incentives are there (more money, fewer wars, whatever), then more people will fill the roles, which I presume is the goal. Of course, I’m open to accepting the reality that Rep. Rangel isn’t interested in military readiness as much as he’s interested in playing to populist nonsense. Also worth noting is that Rep. Rangel’s expectation of “national service” comes with a “guarantee” of education benefits at the end. This is more about who the politicians control than controlling the politicians.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

Canada’s Parliament legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, but Canada’s evangelicals are just now arriving to the party, celebrating the same unprincipled political action that American evangelicals so dearly love.

“With the legalization of gay marriage, faith has been violated and we’ve been forced to respond,” said Charles McVety, a leader of several evangelical Christian organizations that oppose gay marriage and president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto.

Remember, the legislation already passed, so this is a tad late. A little retroactive anger is always good for a free society. But more to the point, how has faith been violated? I’m fairly certain that Canada’s law does not require churches to perform same-sex marriages. There is no civil issue.

Though the expected vote in Parliament will not decide whether to rescind the gay marriage legislation, but instead whether members wish to reopen the issue for debate, it remains significant for the Christian right and the government.

For leaders of the Christian right, the vote is a chance to get the marriage issue back on the government’s agenda and to get a better sense of where individual politicians, especially newly elected ones, stand. They have adopted that strategy in part because they say that the vote in Parliament will be difficult to win.

For Mr. Harper and his Conservative Party, the vote is an attempt to appease the religious social conservatives who form the core of the support for his minority government without losing moderate voters who want to avoid the issue.

Didn’t the U.S. already try this basic idea, except with a majority government? Don’t recent indications suggest that it’s a failed long- medium-termed strategy for building and maintaining a majority? At least we know that America’s new “conservatives” aren’t the only big-government statists who’ve co-opted the term.

I’ve been here before with Robert Samuelson, but it’s important to hammer at this point whenever it appears:

On domestic policy, Democrats have few big opportunities. This creates a dilemma. They can either concentrate on symbolic acts (the minimum wage, the drug benefit) that sharpen their differences with Republicans. Or they can find less controversial matters, where cooperation seems possible, to advertise their fitness to govern and their credentials as centrists. It will be difficult to do both. There’s only one solace — the Republicans face the same dilemma.

I agree that implementing changes won’t be as easy as Democrats might hope. That’s not the issue. When we start resorting to “less controversial,” we come up with non-solutions to real problems. In the context of current politics, of course, because controversy and arguing can and should lead to better solutions. But Congress is dysfunctional and poorly suited to reform.

I’m splitting principle-based hairs on what Democrats should focus on. That brings me to Mr. Samuelson’s (repeat) mistake. Notice in his conclusion that he offers only two choices, symbolic acts or centrist compromises. There is no discussion that maybe Congress shouldn’t be spending the way it spends on what it spends. Why? I’m willing to consider that I’m wrong, but there are alternative viewpoints separate from the Democrat versus Republican debate.

Cooperation, and all that.

I’ve generally liked his shows in the past, but Jamie Oliver should stick to cooking:

The Essex, England-born chef started cooking at age 8 at his parents’ hotel before his first book and television series, “The Naked Chef,” made him famous at the age of 21 in several countries and spurred more books and shows.

Oliver said U.S. politicians should “stop being so subservient” to “junk food companies” and that the country should cut down on junk and fatty foods, which would help reduce future health costs.
…

Oliver said clearer government guidelines were needed, such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent proposal for a near ban on artificial trans fat in restaurant food.

“The junk food companies have got more resources than the government and more money to spend on poxy lawyers so I completely admire and condone the mayor for doing it,” he said.

I’ve said my bit about trans-fat already, and that should suffice here for how I feel about Mr. Oliver’s statist opinion. That doesn’t mean I think kids should eat junk food, of course, but that’s a decision best left to parents. As his experience in England shows, some parents prefer their children to have “junk” food. We can think they’re idiots all we want (and I do, a little), but they’re going to win. Which is why the statists want to use the coercive power of government.

Rather than being anti-liberty, which they are, they could go to a more fundamental, and dare I suggest cost-saving, solution to the actual problem. Allow for school choice. The market would sort this out, with parents opting for whatever dietary preference they wish for their children. If there’s really a demand, parents will seek it out. Now, they’re stuck with what the government offers through its schools.

But that’s wishful thinking, because I clearly don’t care about the children.

I’ll give this guy credit for chutzpah, if not integrity:

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.
…

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a “travesty,” and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had “just said that it’s irrelevant.”

I’m not sure Mr. Mineau understands the absurdity of him saying that legislators believe the State Constitution is irrelevant. Maybe he should sit down and have a think on that for a bit.

A few other instructive points:

The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.

As Kip pointed out, 50 votes out of 200 are required for a constitutional amendment to end up on the ballot because a citizens’ group proposed it? Huh? THAT is the form of democracy people want me to respect? No.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”

I’m sure exploring any alternatives couldn’t be considered activist. Gov. Romney is a conservative, after all. Only the liberals do that. Oh, wait while I smack my forehead. Activist depends on the outcome, not the action.

But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.

Having enough votes to meet a 25% requirement does not, of itself, indicate that the issue remains divisive.

Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.

Big deal. The test should be more stringent than whether or not citizens want it. Reducing rights should never be put to a vote.

First, I need to admit that I was wrong about voter sentiment and willingness to vote in Democrats out Republicans. But I’m not a professional prognosticator, so it just proves that I can be an amateur idiot. Go, me! At least it’ll inform my future thinking, which is a small victory.

I did get the result I wanted, which is the chance for gridlock. For most races, I don’t think we have cause to celebrate, though, as much as we have a chance to regroup and start anew. I imagine that will be squandered, so I haven’t engaged in any gloating, save one race. With the inevitable concession out of the way, I’m laughing hysterically at James Webb’s defeat of Sen. George Allen. Few candidates in recent memory deserved to go from presidential contender to unemployed in three short months more than Sen. Allen. Good riddance. So, Sen. Allen: Ha-ha!

Looking ahead, I’m not making a prediction, but the tossing around of bipartisanship already leaves me thinking that the big government proponents on both sides of the aisle will form an alliance. Wonderful. Is any politician capable of paying attention?

For example, from Robert Novak:

Republican leaders are still in denial in the wake of their crushing defeat. They blame individual losing candidates for failing to prepare themselves for the election. In contrast, the private reaction by the candidates was anger at President Bush and his political team.

The candidates should look in the mirror as much as they should look toward President Bush. Yes, he’s reckless, but he only has Constitutional control over one branch. Many of the Republican candidates tossed aside on Tuesday had control of their own and they bowed at President Bush’s feet at almost every opportunity. Once a politician, always a politician. If they can’t figure that out, they’ll never achieve the permanent majority they thought they had in 1994. Nor should they.

The money quote from George Will’s column states this well:

The country remains receptive to conservatism. That doctrine — were it to become constraining on, rather than merely avowed by, congressional Republicans — can be their bridge back from the wilderness.

It’s too early to talk about, but I think 2008 is up for grabs. Thankfully. Will either party put common sense ahead of party ideology and a lust for power? I doubt it, but the next two years should be different, at least, if not exactly fun.