Maxwell on Government

"I fear that, as conditions worsen, many will react to the failures of too much government by calling for even more government. Then there will be more and more lifeboats launched because fewer and fewer citizens know how to swim. Unlike some pendulums, political pendulums do not swing back automatically; they must be pushed. History is full of instances when people have waited in vain for pendulums to swing back."

-Neal A. Maxwell, Insights from my Life, BYU Devotional, 1976-

More on BP, Obama

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to steal your thunder by one-upping your post. Readers, know that there is a post right below this one that is also deserving of comment. Anyway, I just read a piece from Peggy Noonan in the WSJ and wanted to share a few quotes from it that I thought were fair. Although she leans somewhat to the right, Noonan is pretty moderate politically, and she'll tell it like it is. She's not afraid at calling out the right or the left when either are out of line. So when I want to get a glimpse into the mind of the more middle-of-the-political-road folks, it's refreshing to read her stuff.

Anyway, this is kind of a follow-up to Creighton's last post about the BP slick. Obama gave a prime-time speech to address the federal response to the spill, which I consciously decided not to watch, preferring instead to read the transcript online the next day. I'm not the only one who made the switch. Obama's TV audience went from 48 million in the State of the Union (Jan.) to 32 million this week. Here are a couple quotes from Noonan's column that I thought were fair and insightful:

"It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers [the "small people"] took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors."

And now, some speech reaction from Obama's normal cheerleaders:

"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"

On empty sternness:

"And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty."

Finally, good insight into what has been, for me, perhaps the one aspect of the Obama Presidency that has been most irritating:

"There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault. Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there."

My thought is that while Obama undoubtedly inherited a tough situation, no one likes a whiner or a complainer. Noonan's right, the more Obama blames Bush (not that he has done that relating to BP, at least not that I'm aware of), the weaker he looks. I think America would respond much better to a President who at least comes off as someone who rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work, solves the problem first, and asks questions later - even though the slick isn't his fault - instead of pointing fingers, waiting around, figuring out "whose ass to kick" and hoping that BP will handle everything. I think Obama could learn a lesson from the the "small people" shrimp farmers in that regard.

Here's a link to her entire column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html

What do you guys think?

The conservative king-of-the-hill game in Utah

On You Tube type in "Cherilyn Eagar supporters prepare for the caucus meetings" and watch a hilarious video that encapsulates the primary race for the Utah Senate seat. Cherilyn Eagar got bumped out before Bob Bennett, but the one-upsmanship on who loves the Constitution more is still alive and well between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. (Eagar AND Bennett, along with Lonsbury endorsed Bridgewater; Shurteff, Bangerter, Hansen and Covey endorsed Lee) Lots of other endorsements. I am not settled on who to vote for. Any thoughts?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

There's been a case here in Utah I've been following a little bit over the past year. Last July, it was uncovered that a seminary prinicipal in Utah (I think Provo area) at a high-school had been engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16 year old female student (for a synopsis of the story, go to Anyways I'm not sure if this is totally correct, but it says he faces 6 years to life in prison. Now I really doubt this guy is gonna go to prison for life, but even 6 years seems a little steep. I don't want to minimize the severity of what he did, it was pretty horrible. But I don't know that it warrants a multi-year jail sentence. I had a companion who's father had a consensual sexual relationship with the neighbor's 17 year old daughter and he got slapped with a 30 day prison sentence and so many years of probation. Granted he wasn't a teacher, but does being a teacher warrant extending the prison time by 72 times? What do you guys think should happen to this guy?

Obama Administration's reaction to oil spill

New polls out show a huge dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's response to the gulf oil spill. From what I've seen they've largely left it up to BP to fix the spill. I would think this would be more of the "tea party" or conservative response. What more or less should the Obama adminstration be doing to help with the Gulf oil spill?

Arizona Immigration

I think the passing of Arizona's new, staunch law on immigration represents a fantastic point our Founding Fathers wanted to happen: the distinction between state and federal governments. People are all up in arms over this new legislation- people outside of Arizona, that is. The people inside of Arizona like the legislation (for the most part). They passed it because they wanted it. No one else outside of Arizona has follow the Arizonian laws and they don't have to worry about the laws there. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. Don't complain about what other states are doing unless it's your own state is what I say. It's wonderful to live in a country where different states with different problems can handle their problems in the way that best meets their needs, without messing everyone else up.
P.S. If you are registered to vote in Utah, vote for Bob Bennett! The Convention is May 8th!

Which way would you rule?

This doesn't have a lot to do with politics, well in a way it does. I was reading around on the site recommended by Nic, Redit. Well while cruising around I found a really interesting legal case that I wanted to get your opinion on.

Two guys get in a fight at a bar, one pulls out a knife and stabs the other in the stomach. The man stabbed loses a lot of blood before he gets to the hospital. At the hospital the doctors tell him he needs a blood transfusion. Turns out this guy is a J-dub (Jehovah's Witness) and refuses the blood transfer. The doctors tell him if he refused the transfusion, he will die. If he has it however, he will live. This dude refuses it to his death. The guy that stabbed him was then charged with murder. If you were on the jury, would you find the stabber guilty of murder?

The Means and the Ends of Liberty

For those not familiar with Reddit, I can't recommend it enough. It is a social news website where users can post links to items on the web. All of the other users can vote the item up or down and comment on it. The discussions and content can become offensive at times, but for the most part, Redditors are very funny, very intellectual people.

There are many "subreddits" or sections where items are posted on only a certain topic. Naturally, I subscribe to the Libertarian subreddit (reddit.com/r/Libertarian) where I get my daily affirmation of my political beliefs. After following this subreddit for about a year, I have noticed a trend. A large percentage of the posts have this format: "How would x work in a libertarian society?"

I suppose it's only natural. In a society that has an almost infantile reliance on government, people simply cannot imagine how we could possibly get by without it. Who would provide the roads, the utilities, the common defense? Who would regulate food and drugs? Who would protect us from Wall Street and credit card companies and predatory lenders? Who would provide welfare and health care and retirement funds?

People in general aren't going to argue that freedom is bad. People know freedom is a good thing. As a libertarian, I never have to argue from a deontological standpoint. That's not the problem. The problem is that people just don't know how freedom would work. Without government, chaos would ensue, right? So, I always get this statement from opponents: "Liberty is all well and good, but...." Suddenly they become consequentialists!

I always think of Nineteen Eighty-Four when encountering such statements. In George Orwell's dystopian future, "doublethink" is defined as "[t]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...." You ask people if they agree with the statement "the ends justify the means" and most people will not. In fact, most people feel a sort of moral repugnance for such a notion; however, in the very next breath, you can get them to admit that they think it's okay to infringe someone's liberty as long as some benefit is derived from it. Doublethink.

So, I have found myself scouring world history for successful examples of freedom working pragmatically. I discovered the "golden age" of American liberty in the 1800s, the successful anarchy of Iceland from the 10th to the 13th centuries, the stateless "Free Territory" of Ukraine in the early 1900s--I've actually compiled quite a list. And you know what? None of it convinced anyone. It was as if an atheist demanded to see God, so God showed up and said, "Here I am." Will the atheist suddenly believe? No, he will demand magic tricks to prove that this person is indeed God. And if God successfully completes the magic tricks, the atheist will explain them as mere illusions that any magician could perform. You just can't win.

Never mind that economic freedom has been proven to reduce poverty and promote wage equality. Never mind that drug legalization has been proven to reduce drug use and violent crime. Never mind that eliminating speed limits actually decreases the number of fatal accidents. Never mind that free societies are historically responsible for incredible economic and technological advancement while communist countries inevitably crumble to pieces.

But let's say that liberty didn't work, that allowing the individual to be free was found to result mostly in negative results. Would I abandon it then? No! As noted philosopher Karl Popper said, "It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it."

Will freedom yield a perfect, utopian society? No! When human beings co-exist, there will always be problems. It is natural. It is to be expected. However, as Thomas Jefferson declared, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

Thankfully, as a libertarian, I have an excellent position to argue from. From a deontological standpoint, liberty is always the right thing to do, even if it has negative results; and, from a consequentialist standpoint, liberty has been shown to be the most successful economic and social system the world has ever known. I think I can sleep well tonight.

What is the role of government?

I don't mean to mitigate Devin's post on immigration by posting so soon afterwards, but since Nic's first comment I have been thinking a lot about the role of government, and what it should be. Mostly this post is in response to this comment by Nic "As with most issues, I believe that problems can be solved best by getting government out of the picture and leaning toward liberty." I am not attacking Nic, merely this comment has caused me to think about what role government should play, so Nic, you should more take this is a compliment. I had a simple response in the next comment that I made; " I think we just differ philosophically on the role of government so we probably won't ever totally agree on anything, which is fine." Since then I've spent a lot of time thinking about what the world would be like with less government "intrusion," and it's caused me to ponder where the best balance might lie. Please respond with your disagreements, I'm sure they'll be many.

1. Foremost in my mind is the issue of slavery. Now I know Nic believes in liberty, freedom, so obviously I'm assuming he doesn't believe in slavery. But without government intrusion under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, would we not still theoretically have slavery in the South? Therefore I believe it is the role of government to protect the God-given, inalienable rights promised by the constitution, that the minority may not have power to protect itself. So my question to Nic (and anyone else), is it the role of government to ensure freedom for all citizens is maximized, or are we to govern ourselves?

2. I believe in government regulation. For example, the food you eat has come from strict standards enforced by the FDA to ensure maximum quality and safety. The water you drink has been treated under safety parameters, set out by the government, to make sure you and your families don't drink water infected with pathogens. Would these systems be better based purely on competing companies with no government regulation? Would our food and water be safe to eat and drink? Based on my experience in Peru, where there seems to be less regulation, the answer is no.

I had a few more to list but I think you get my point. I believe government exists to ensure fairness, equality (including equal opportunities), create and enforce law by popular consent, provide for the defense of our country, and to regulate consumer products and services to ensure quality, fairness, safety, and effectiveness. I agree that government often oversteps their bounds with misguided spending (mainly deficit spending) and occasionally creates laws that don't necessarily reflect the values of the constitution. But overall I think the government does a pretty good job at the things I mentioned. I am interested to hear what you think the role of government is, or is not. I am open to changing my viewpoints.

Undecided on Immigration

Since amnesty looks like the next big push by the Obama administration, and in the wake of Arizona's new law strengthening immigration enforcement (Rich, your unique perspective as a current AZ resident would be much appreciated here), I thought it would be an appropriate time for this blog's first discussion about immigration. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions on this topic. I want those of you who have strong opinions about it to convince me that you're right.On the one hand, I'll admit to having a soft spot in my normally icy cold, stony, conservative heart (that one's for you, Creighton) for those who are willing to leave everything they have behind and come to a land of promise - a land that rewards those who break a sweat, work hard, and improve their lots. At some point in time, this is what our ancestors did. After living in Argentina for 2 years, I can't blame or fault anyone that would rather come here for the chance at a better life as long as they're willing to work for it. Speaking of working, I've worked alongside some "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" and some on work visas at Custom Fence, and I've found that in general, they are very hard working, family-oriented individuals who sent the majority of their earnings back home to provide for their families, and made concerted efforts at learning english (although I also know there are plenty who are not hardworking or law abiding once they're here).

On the other hand, I know many people from Argentina who have waited years and years, and for whatever reason have not been successful at entering the U.S. legally. Liberals like the word "fairness." How "fair" is it to those countless immigrants who have respected our laws, waited in line, tried to come here the right way, to have so many leap frog them by crossing the border illegally? I'd be very upset if I tried to get here legally, couldn't, to then see a blanket sweep of amnesty. I'd be thinking, "man, I'm an idiot! Why didn't I just hop the fence?" Wouldn't the mere talk of amnesty, then, increase the incentives and encourage people to break the law? I believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thus, am sympathetic towards those who try to come here the right way. But this brings us back to square one: is the current law a good one? Should it be changed? If so, how? Should we take the path chosen by the people of Arizona toward stricter enforcement? Or should we go down the road the Obama administration wants toward amnesty?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what ya'll have to say.