Toward a Culture and Politics of
Accountability
(Please note that this is my own personal statement, written in October 2006 and posted for the purposes of discussion. It in no way is to be taken to reflect the views of, or any endorsement by, the University of Oklahoma.)
I)
The Bush administration and its allies in
the Republican Party, the Congress, and the right-wing media have produced a culture
of corruption that is
now endemic in Washington.
II)
This culture of corruption is the product
of many things, but the most important of these are:
A.
First, the Bush-ites lack a coherent political ideology or
platform, beyond the idolization
of power. People often
proclaim that the Republicans have a coherent ideology, and their rhetoric is
remarkably unified on issues at any given moment, but the policies they
actually pursue reveal no
coherent platform beyond the (almost) naked pursuit of political power. This
can be seen most vividly in the wildly varying justifications presented for
cutting taxes on the wealthy, privatizing social security, expanding the
Medicare prescription drug benefit, invading Iraq, and more. In short, Bush-ite
Republicans are not
conservatives, though they play them on TV.
B.
Second, what unity the Bush-ites do
possess comes from a shared authoritarian conception of order, characterized by a disdain for
parliamentary/congressional politics, a celebration of hyper-masculine
ÒdecisivenessÓ and military vigor, discipline, and power, a belief that power
is its own validation and creates its own reality, a combination of distrust of
and contempt for ÒordinaryÓ people, coupled with the recognition that such
ordinary people hold the keys to office and so must be courted through populist
rhetoric and/or manipulated by the media, a ferocious anti-intellectualism
(linked to a celebration of the Òman of actionÓ and a distrust of skepticism,
diversity of opinion, and contemplation more generally), and the ardent pursuit
of the centralization of power.
1.
This authoritarian conception of order is
not in itself religious, but it dovetails with the patriarchal, authoritarian
strains of fundamentalist Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic). It is
this shared authoritarian conception of order that provides the basis for the
political linkage between fundamentalists and corporate elites, who have
radically dis-similar economic interests.
2.
This authoritarian conception of order is
not unique to the Bush-ites, but rather is a very common response to times of
social and economic upheaval; in our time, the upheavals associated with
economic globalization, the information technology/digital revolution, changing
gender roles, and, of course, the attacks of 9/11 are the most significant in
encouraging Bush-ite authoritarianism.
3.
Bushism is thus a 21st-Century
species of Bonapartism, and Bonapartes throughout history always have found
that winning the working and lower middle classes is necessary for their
pursuit of imperial power and that this is most easily accomplished through
anti-intellectual, nationalist rhetoric (by which the power elite portrays
itself as anti-elitist by taking on what it calls the cultural elite), through
military adventures (which allow would-be emperors to call their critics
traitors to the republic), and through vast government spending on political
pork (which keeps the political machine going). Note that the last of these is
different from genuine government investment in a nationÕs productive or
cultural capacities (even though some things may get built), because its purpose
is the maintenance of political power by making access to resources dependent
on political loyalty: a classic example of this for the Bush-ites is the ÒK
Street Project,Ó whereby access to power by lobbyists is made contingent upon
partisan loyalty.
III) This culture of corruption can and must
be rolled back. The essential steps in eliminating this culture of corruption
are:
A.
First and foremost, politicians who
embrace the values described above and so abuse the public trust must be
defeated at the ballot box. In a democracy, the lessons learned by politicians
are taught by victories and defeats in elections. There is no substitute for
electoral victory, honestly earned.
1.
In addition, the independence and
(relative) nonpartisanship of the judiciary must be protected, as an
independent judiciary is
always the last bulwark of democracy. The Senate should pass a rule that all
candidates for all federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court, receive
bipartisan support or be rejected. Bipartisan support would have to be
specified somehow, perhaps by requiring a super-majority (2/3) vote for
confirmation. Only a radical, intentionally divisive candidate would fail to
meet this test.
B.
Second, we must embrace—and demand
from our leaders—a culture and politics of accountability. Such a culture and politics of
accountability will require:
1.
First, a politics of accountability will
require transparency in government,
including transparency regarding the financing of campaigns.
a.
The
government is the peopleÕs instrument for collective action: nothing the peopleÕs instrument does should be
kept secret from the people, with the sole exceptions being private personal
information (e.g. tax returns, medical information) gathered by the government
in the course of its business, and information with a clear and present
relation to national security.
b.
The test
for secrecy with regard to national security is not, and should never be,
will this piece of information make us—the nation or the administration—look
bad if made public. It should be, will this piece of information put American
lives in clear and present danger if it is revealed.
c.
In court
hearings related to requests for classified information, the burden of proof
should be on the government to show that the information must be kept secret.
2.
A second step towards a politics of
accountability would be the public provision of significant airtime to all
candidates who are on the ballot for national elections.
a.
This can be
required of TV, cable, and radio stations by the FCC as part of public service
licensing requirements.
b.
This policy
would reduce, but not eliminate, the need for candidates to raise large sums of
money, increasing their accountability to ordinary voters.
3.
A third, vital step towards a politics of
accountability would be to redraw congressional districts by bipartisan
committees so as to represent actual geographic communities, with the
correlated goal being to maximize the number of competitive seats rather than to maximize the power of
voting blocks. Competitive elections make for accountable government; safe
seats do not.
4.
A fourth step towards a politics of
accountability would involve transparency in vote-counting procedures,
especially with electronic voting machines. There must be a verifiable paper-trail for all
votes, otherwise the possibility exists that the public will may be thwarted by
hacking the vote.
5.
A fifth step would be the adoption (and
enforcement) of new rules regulating lobbying (i.e. no junkets) and limiting
the uses of funds raised for political campaigns.
6.
Sixth, and finally, the centralization of
media power, which has been abetted both by new technologies and by regulatory
policy (especially the 1996 Telecommunications Act), must be rolled back.
a.
Government
policy can and should encourage competition in media and telecommunications,
break up media conglomerates (such as Clear Channel and Sinclair), and require
genuine public service activities from mass media.
IV) In addition to these political reforms,
we must articulate a Progressive agenda in keeping with this new culture of
accountability. You canÕt beat something with nothing, and while the Bush-ites
do not have a coherent platform, they do have power. Their power of wealth and
office must be met and countered by the progressive power of ideas.
A.
This Progressive agenda must demand that
public officials be accountable to the public and that individuals be accountable to each
other. It must promote a culture of both personal and public responsibility.
B.
It must reflect the moral and political
ideals enshrined in our Bill of Rights, defending individual liberty but
demanding personal responsibility.
C.
The genius of America was and is neither
capitalism nor democracy, neither individualism nor community spirit, neither
the cold economic logic of the market nor the warm passion—and
compassion—of faith, but the wedding of these divergent forces to each
other. Individual
freedoms and personal fulfillment only can be achieved through community life,
and the purpose of community is to enable individuals to pursue their dreams.
Our dreams are our own, but if they are to become real, they cannot be not ours
alone.
V)
Some key policies that reflect these
principles are:
A.
First, we must provide universal basic
health insurance: the
federal government should provide every citizen a health insurance credit
sufficient to purchase a health insurance plan equivalent to a standard HMO
Òlow option.Ó
1.
Individuals would have the choice of
using that credit to pay for insurance provided by a private insurer or for an
insurance package provided by a National Insurance Agency. People who donÕt
make an explicit choice will be enrolled in the basic NIA plan by default, and no citizen should be excluded from
receiving the NIA package for any
reason.
a.
It is vital
that all citizens to be able to appeal a denial of coverage for a procedure or
medication by the NIA to an independent physicianÕs review board.
b.
Individuals
wishing to purchase more extensive coverage from a private insurer may combine
this credit with their own funds (or funds from their employer) in order to do
so.
2.
Under this plan, neither businesses nor
private individuals will need to pay for health insurance unless they want
something more than this basic package.
a.
As a
result, this plan would lift an enormous burden from our businesses, which
currently must pay enormous health care costs that their international
competitors do not.
b.
In
addition, this plan will reduce
total health care costs by enabling everyone to have access to basic preventive
care, which is cheaper by far than crisis care, and by reducing administrative
costs.
c.
Even more,
universal basic health insurance will lift an enormous burden from the backs of
the working poor.
3.
This system would not make physicians employees of the state;
in fact, their daily practice would not be much altered. All they would do is
send their claims paperwork to a different office.
B.
Second, we must restore fiscal order through the reversal of the Bush tax
cuts for those making
over $100K, the addition of a 10% surtax on income over a million dollars per
year, the alteration of capital gains tax exemption requirements to reward
long-term (multi-year) investments rather than stock speculation and windfall
profits, and through increases in corporate income taxes (which have declined dramatically
over the past 25 years) to help pay for the health insurance that individuals
and corporations no longer would have to buy.
1.
Our enormous national debt is a drag on
our economy and, even more importantly, it is an engine for the
redistribution of our nationÕs wealth to powerful interests, especially foreign
interests, that are not accountable to the American public.
a.
There may
be times when it is necessary to run a deficit for a short period, but deficit
spending for a second
year in a row should be allowed only by a super-majority vote in Congress.
2.
In addition, these measures are necessary
to provide the revenue for the governmentÕs policies. The peopleÕs instrument
must be a good instrument, in working order, and you canÕt have a good tool without
paying for it.
3.
These policies would ask those who have
benefited most from the opportunities our nation provides to give back some of
what they have earned so that others might have opportunities to succeed as
well.
4.
Those who worry that such tax increases
would hamper economic growth should recall that, since WWII, the nationÕs
economic performance, by every reasonable measure (GDP growth, job growth,
unemployment rates, interest rates, national debt, and more), has been superior
under Democratic rather than Republican Presidents: that is, the pursuit of
progressive policies like the ones outlined here has been good for business, while supposedly Òbusiness-friendlyÓ
anti-progressive policies have been bad for business.
C.
Third, we need to create an energy
independence tax,
consisting of a higher tariff on imported oil, a $1 per gallon gasoline tax to
be applied at the pump (to be indexed to inflation), and a
pollution/inefficiency tax of 5% of a carÕs purchase price, to be imposed on
the purchase of any new passenger vehicles (including all SUVs, pickup trucks,
and minivans) that fail to meet a minimum mileage requirement to be set by the
EPA (20 or 25 mpg, say).
1.
Individual liberty means you can buy a
Hummer if you want to; accountability means that you must compensate your
community for the additional burden your choice of vehicle imposes upon our
roads, air quality, and energy supply, burdens that others must share.
2.
This energy independence tax will impose
a greater burden on low-income people who are stuck with older, gas-guzzling
cars.
a.
The burden
on low-income people can be mitigated to some extent, however, by providing
subsidies for the purchase of high-efficiency automobiles and by creating a
gas-guzzler buy-back program whereby inefficient cars can be bought by the
government at above Òbook valueÓ.
D.
Fourth, we should create a new program
enabling wider access to post-secondary education. This program would have two components:
an academic achievement-based grant program and a service-based grant and loan
program.
1.
The achievement program, in essence,
would provide all
students who score above a certain level on a comprehensive national
examination a package of financial aid sufficient to enable them to attend the
college or university of their choice (assuming that that college or university
has accepted them, of course).
a.
The aid
package would vary according to the costs of the college in question. The goal
of this program would be to reward achievement, so the standard for ÒpassingÓ
the exam should be high (equivalent to a 3 or better on a set of AP exams,
say).
b.
The exam
should be modeled on the AP exams as opposed to SATs or ACTs in that it must
test mastery of specific content rather than being curriculum-independent. There may be a set of curriculum
options and thus a set
of exam options; the goal is not to prescribe a national curriculum but to
reward students who work hard to master the curriculum they have chosen.
c.
Students
would continue to receive their aid package so long as they maintain a
cumulative B average or better, with any semester average of less than B
resulting in a one-semester probation during which they must earn a B average
in order to continue to receive their aid package.
2.
The service program would provide a
package of grants and loans to any and all persons seeking post-secondary education at a public
college or university, including
graduate and professional education,
in exchange for a commitment to public service.
a.
Students in
this program will be required to maintain a C average (higher for graduate or
professional school students), and any semester average of less than a C will
result in a one-semester probation during which they must earn a C average in
order to continue to receive their aid package.
b.
The length
of the service commitment will be one year of service for each year of
education.
c.
Public
service may take many forms: for doctors and lawyers, say, working in public
health clinics or in under-served areas, working as public defenders, etc.
College graduates might serve as teacherÕs aides, provide free public
presentations of artistic works, enlist in the armed forces, work for state,
local, or federal government agencies, work on public works projects, or
perform other public service work. Non-profit organizations, such as churches
or other community organizations, may apply to have specific positions listed
as public-service work.
d.
The basic
principle will be that the person will be engaged in full-time public service
work, though this work may be paid work.
e.
A person
may Òbuy outÕ their service commitment by signing a repayment agreement in
which they not only repay all loans but also all grants received through this
program. (The buy-out may be pro-rated if someone wants to buy out of two of
the four years of service, for example.)
3.
Through the combination of these two
programs, anyone who wants to go to college will not be prevented on account of
cost; their part of the bargain is that they must achieve at a high level and
use their talents in service to their community.
E.
Fifth, we need to undertake a program of infrastructure
redevelopment. Our
nationÕs roads, highways, bridges, and shipping and communications systems all
need to be improved markedly, as do our parks, community centers, public
housing, and schools. Doing so would improve our economic competitiveness
internationally at the same time it would improve our local community life.
1.
A major part of this investment plan
would be a program of investment in R&D on green technologies, focused on developing a new generation
of automobiles and electric power plants not powered by fossil fuels (or that
have zero greenhouse emissions). If we want to slow global warming, then we must develop automobiles and power plants
that do not contribute to it. All other measures to slow global warming will be
futile if automobiles and electric power generation are not changed.
2.
The key to shifting to zero emission
automobiles and power plants will be the active participation of our auto
makers and our oil/energy companies; both groups must be given incentives to
participate, since the benefits of such a shift are long-term (and might well
accrue to others), meaning that they have little near-term incentive to
participate in such a shift unless the government creates that incentive
through regulation and/or subsidy.
F.
Sixth, Social Security should remain an
intergenerational community compact and
not be transformed into a private retirement plan. Age requirements, benefit
levels, and payroll taxes can and should be adjusted to keep the system solvent
for the long term.
1.
Contrary to Bush-ite rhetoric, the
adjustments required will be minor: changing the age requirement from 65 to 67,
plus a small increase to the payroll tax would make the system solvent for at
least 70 years, at which point similar small alterations would make it solvent
for another century.
G.
Seventh, and finally, the power of the
federal government to intrude upon our private lives and infringe upon our
civil liberties must be limited.
1.
Essential steps towards this end include:
repeal of the Patriot Act and cessation of the use of Ònational security
lettersÓ and covert surveillance of American citizens unless such surveillance
is authorized by a judge.
2.
We already have in place systems for
getting approval for such surveillance rapidly and secretly from the F.I.S.A.
and other legal authorities; trusting the executive branch to conduct such
surveillance without any oversight from the judiciary is a recipe for disaster.
VI) In the foreign arena, foreign policy must
be guided by the pursuit of democratic freedoms and conducted with same attention to transparency and accountability that we demand for domestic policy. This
may mean using military force abroad to defend human rights, but the use of
military force always should be a last resort. If military force is necessary to accomplish vital national
objectives, then we must be certain to use sufficient force not only to win the
battles but also the peace that will follow. Wars cannot be fought on the cheap. Most often, these principles will mean
the pursuit of constructive, long-term relationships in the community of
nations.
A.
In the near term, these principles mean
that we must immediately and unconditionally repudiate the use of torture by any agent or ally of the United States,
including the CIA, cease the abhorrent policy of extraordinary rendition, close the CIAÕs secret prisons abroad, cease the practice of entrusting
operational military functions to private ÒcontractorsÓ (otherwise known as mercenaries), and
demand that our ÒalliesÓ in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, move
towards genuine democracy and protection for civil liberties as a condition of
continued military and economic aid.
Doing the above will do more to win the Òwar on terrorÓ than any army ever
could.
B.
As regards Iraq, there are now no
longer any good options
thanks to the immorality and incompetence of the Bush-ites, so we must make do
with finding ways to dig our way out of the hole they have dug for us. The are
only three potentially
viable options: the current policy of Òstaying the courseÓ with an inadequate
force is not one of
the them. It is a recipe for breeding resentment without instilling fear and
thus for generating an ever-growing stream of enemies.
1.
One option, Ògoing big,Ó would be to
quadruple (or more) our current force levels in Iraq, providing enough troops
to seal the borders with Syria and Iran and to police the Sunni Triangle. Doing
so would be enormously costly, probably would require reinstituting the draft
and raising taxes, and might fail anyway. It might succeed in stopping the
insurgency by making the ordinary people of Iraq confident that the balance of
power in on our side, and unless they are confident that the insurgents will be
defeated and their helpers punished, the insurgency cannot be defeated. This is
a very high cost, moderate chance of success option, but even it would be
better than our current high cost, zero chance of success policy.
2.
The second option, Ògoing home,Ó is a
rapid, staged withdrawal from Iraq along the lines suggested by Rep. Murtha.
This would, inevitably, be a short-term victory for the insurgents and for the
Al-Qaeda terrorists who will claim to have had a part in driving us out. It
would, however, have the advantage of removing the great spur to recruitment
for terrorists that the Iraq occupation has become. In the long term, the last
thing Bin Laden, et al, want is for the U.S. to leave Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents,
on the other hand, will be thrilled, as they will have a very good chance of
seizing power over the Sunni region of the country. A bloody civil war almost
certainly will ensue upon our withdrawal, which is another reason why this option
is not a good one—itÕs just less bad than Òstaying the course.Ó
3.
The third option, Òtrisection,Ó would be
to divide Iraq into three separate political entities—the Kurd, Sunni,
and Shiite regions. We would then withdraw our troops completely from the Sunni
region and leave only sufficient forces in the other two regions to protect them
from military incursions from the Sunni region, if such protection is desired.
(It probably would be welcomed by the Kurds but not by the Shiites, or at least
not for very long.)
a.
Again, this
result would be proclaimed a victory by Al Qaeda and the insurgents, and there
would be some truth to their claims.
b.
On the
other hand, it would highlight the intra-Muslim aspect of the conflict (Sunni
vs. Shiite), which terrorists and their supporters wish to hide so as to
portray America as anti-Muslim.
c.
In
addition, it might preserve something positive out of the wreckage of Iraq by
creating two states (the Kurd and the Shiite) that might be relatively peaceful
and stable.
d.
The danger
would be that the Shiite state might become an Iran-like theocracy, and it is
quite likely that Iraqi nationalists will oppose the trisection of their
country, despite the fact that their nation was created by the British, not by
ancient history or long-standing cultural community.
e.
As noted
above, none of these are good options, but this third option (trisection) has
the best chance of minimizing the damage done by this ill-chosen war of choice.
In fact, it is extremely likely that Iraq will be trisected whatever course we
choose; we might as well make the inevitable work as well as we can.
VII)
As regards
trade policy, a free-trade approach is, broadly speaking, often a positive one.
It is not the best approach, however, when our foreign competitors gain the
short-term benefit of lax legal or environmental protections. (Such ÒbenefitsÓ
are only short-term, but our businesses must be competitive today in order to
be around to reap long-term benefits tomorrow.) A politics of accountability as
applied to trade thus is neither blindly protectionist nor blindly free-trade
oriented. An accountable, responsible trade policy would embrace wholly free
trade, with two major exceptions:
A.
First, the imposition of a Òfreedom
tariffÓ on all imports received from nations that
do not provide meaningful protection of civil liberties (such as freedom of
speech and press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to organize
in unions, one-person one-vote democracy) and thus keep wages artificially low
through the use (or threat) of either political power or physical force.
B.
Second, the imposition of an Òexternalities tariffÓ on all imports received from nations
that allow their corporations to ÒexternalizeÓ their costs by permitting
environmental degradation that is prohibited here in the U.S.
1.
In short, if you want to compete with
American businesses on the basis of low wage labor, thatÕs fine, so long as
that labor really is free to make other choices; if your workers effectively
are slaves, then you shouldnÕt reap a competitive benefit from your low wages.
The freedom tariff's goal is to eliminate that advantage.
2.
Similarly, if you want to compete with
American businesses on low costs of production and are able to do so by being
more efficient, then thatÕs great; if you do so by dumping waste American
corporations would be required to clean up or treat (i.e. by externalizing
costs American companies are required to internalize), then you should not reap
a competitive benefit for doing so.
3.
The ability to export goods to the U.S.
market is a privilege, not a right, for foreign interests, and the burden
should be upon these foreign interests to provide evidence that their
corporations do not have an unfair
competitive advantage.
C.
These tariffs should be imposed on all
goods being brought into the United States from countries that fail to meet the
tests above, including
goods that are manufactured abroad by U.S. companies or their subsidiaries;
these tariffs also should apply to ÒintermediateÓ goods produced abroad that
will be assembled in the United States into finished products.
1.
Applying these tariffs in these ways also
will have the benefit of reducing the incentive for American corporations to
move their production offshore.
2.
The administration of these tariffs will
require enlarging the staff of the customs service, with more paperwork and
more inspections of goods from abroad.
a.
Neither of
these side-effects need be a bad thing however; the increased administrative
costs can be paid for out of the proceeds of the tariffs, the added paperwork
burden for corporations might provide a slight incentive to keep production in the
U.S., and a more rigorous programme of inspections of foreign cargo would be
valuable in helping keep us safer from terrorist attacks on our own soil.
3.
The most obvious immediate impact of such
tariffs would be to increase the cost of goods produced in China.
a.
These
tariffs would increase prices for consumer goods in the United States,
especially at stores such as Wal-Mart, and the burden of these price increases
in the near term will fall most heavily on the poor and working to lower-middle
class Americans.
b.
The
long-term benefits for all Americans, including those with less money, will far
exceed those costs, since the key to a good standard of living is not cheap
goods but good jobs.
c.
Nevertheless,
these costs will be painful for some in the short term. As a result, it is
important that these trade policies be adopted in conjunction with the tax and
aid policies described above, both to reduce the overall financial burden the
government imposes on people with less money and to make clear to all the
positive benefits gained through such policies.
4.
A more subtle impact of these trade
regulations (and the health care policy above) will be that our firms will not
be able to use environmental regulations, health care costs, or unfair wage
competition as excuses for poor performance. Proceeds from these tariffs can
be used to pay for the tariff regulatory process and to subsidize R&D,
especially on green technologies, here in the U.S.
D.
Finally, it should be noted by the
advocates of free trade that free trade, like the free market, is always a
relative term.
1.
There is no such thing as wholly free
trade, just as there is no such thing as a wholly free market. All trade and
all markets exist in a structure of laws and institutions that set the ground
rules for transactions.
2.
The goal of government policy should be
to set those broad ground rules so that individual economic actors will find it
to their advantage to act in ways that help the community: i.e. to make it so
that individuals and firms do well by doing good.
3.
The two broad tariffs listed above (the
Òfreedom tariffÓ and the Òexternalities tariffÓ) can replace almost all other
tariffs and international trade regulations, with the primary exceptions being
anti-dumping laws and the energy independence tariff described above.
VIII)
Four other
issues of enormous political importance are gun control, the death penalty,
abortion, and gay rights/gay marriage. As a set, these issues are distinct from
the economic and political process issues discussed above, but they can be
dealt with using the same principles of individual responsibility and public
accountability.
A.
Common-sense gun control—no
automatic weapons or armor-piercing bullets, licensing of all gun owners, and
background checks—is moderately valuable as a policy and fits with the
notion of a culture of accountability.
1.
Individuals do have the right to keep and
even to bear arms, but their right to do so can and must be limited by concern
for the health and welfare of the larger community.
2.
Single-shot weapons have valid legal uses
and pose only a limited threat to the larger community when owners are licensed
and their backgrounds checked.
3.
Automatic weapons do not have valid legal uses and pose a much
more serious threat to the community.
4.
Gun control, however, should be a low
priority issue at the federal level because it is not clear how much of an
effect it has on actual crime rates, as opposed to other, less controversial
measures, such as increasing police forces.
B.
As regards the death penalty, the state, as
the peopleÕs instrument, does have the right to punish people for their crimes,
even unto death. The community must be able to protect itself against predatory
individuals.
1.
Having that right in the abstract does not make it a good idea to use it in practice,
however: the death penalty, as opposed to a sentence of life in prison, appears
to serve no deterrent effect. As criminologists long have known, it is less the
severity of the sentence than the surety of punishment that deters crime.
2.
In addition, the death penalty does not
allow for two crucial aspects of our human condition: our fallibility and our capacity for redemption.
a.
Humans are
fallible and therefore so are juries and judges. We now have documented dozens,
perhaps hundreds of cases where innocent people have been sentenced to death.
We know that a black man is almost ten times more likely to be sentenced to
death than a white man, even when the crime in question is identical. The death
penalty assumes perfection in a system that is not perfect by dealing out an
ultimate, unalterable punishment.
b.
Finally,
though it is rare, it does happen that people sentenced to life in prison do
change themselves and do some kind of redemptive work. The death penalty
forecloses that option.
c.
If there
were evidence that the death penalty had a marked effect on crime rates, making
the nation vastly
safer, one could argue that the calculus of costs and benefits breaks in its
favor. There is no such evidence, however, and I believe that support for the
death penalty derives mainly from a natural, but dangerous, desire for
vengeance, which is never a good basis for policy.
C.
Abortion: one thing that both sides would
do well to remember that the other side also is defending a positive moral
value.
1.
The pro-choice side is defending the
right of the mother to make her own choices about her body, and if you canÕt
make choices about your body, you are not free. A government that could force a
woman to carry a child to term would be a fearsome thing.
2.
The pro-life side, on the other hand, is
defending the right to life of an unborn child. Calling it a fetus or zygote or
embryo as opposed to a child does not change that fact.
a.
Opposing
abortion is different than opposing birth control, therefore, because an event
has occurred (the fertilization and implantation of an egg that, if not aborted
or miscarried, will, in the natural course of events, become a human child),
and that event changes things.
3.
Thus, in the matter of abortion, we are
dealing with a contest of two positive moral values, not a battle of light
against darkness. (Here, one should set aside the question of the tactics employed by each side, which have ranged
from the uplifting to the abhorrent, and focus on their goals.)
4.
In addition, there is an important
political process question involved in the abortion debate: at what level
should decisions regarding abortion be made?
a.
Is it a
constitutional right, as declared in Roe v. Wade, that no legislature at any level can
eliminate? Or is it a matter that
should be decided by elected bodies, at the state or federal level, rather than
by appointed judges?
b.
A not
insignificant portion of the anger of pro-life people is motivated by the
belief that they had no voice in this important public issue.
5.
So, what is the path to resolution? In a
contest between two valid moral views, one has to make compromises and look at
practical realities.
a.
In this
case, it would be very nearly impossible to enforce consistently a ban on
abortions in the first trimester, especially since we now know that as many as
40% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first 8-10 weeks, and
especially since medications (day-after pills) now exist that would prevent
implantation. A law that cannot be enforced with any kind of consistency is
inherently a bad law. In addition, the rights of the mother, as a fully-formed,
independent, and sentient human, outweigh the rights of a potential human most heavily (but not absolutely)
at this stage. As a result, abortion should be constitutionally protected in the
first trimester.
b.
On the
other hand, it is hard to defend an abortion in the third trimester: the unborn
child already has reached a state where it is viable outside the womb, moves on
its own, feels pain, etc., and one can well argue that the mother, if she were
going to abort the pregnancy, should have done so in the first trimester. So,
for third trimester abortions, abortion should be allowed only in the most
extreme circumstances, such as a grave threat to the life of the mother.
(Fortunately, very
few abortions take place in the third trimester.)
c.
That leaves
the second trimester; here, the claims of mother and unborn child balance so
evenly that there can be no absolute rights one way or the other. As a result,
laws regarding abortions in the second trimester should be left in the hands of
state legislatures. Such state laws might impose successively more stringent
tests and requirements over the course of the second trimester, with a
counseling requirement at 10 weeks and a requirement to show medical cause
(rape, incest, threat to health of the mother, severe deformity in the fetus)
from week 16 to 24.
d.
In sum,
first trimester abortion should be constitutionally protected, third trimester
abortion constitutionally prohibited (except to save the life of the mother),
and second trimester abortion should be up to state legislatures.
D.
Finally, gay rights/gay marriage.
1.
The issue of gay marriage is a hot-button
issue that has an emotional (and political) importance far beyond its actual
effect on most people's lives. This is the understandable product of several
factors:
a.
First,
sexuality is a powerful component of human identity, hence the enormous array
of social and legal conventions and institutions devoted to defining what is
and what is not acceptable sexuality.
b.
Second,
sexuality is both
biological and social; medical research now appears to show that, in any
population, there are going to be certain individuals whose biological
inclination is going to be towards homosexual sex (and love). For some, this
inclination will be so strong as to be determinate of their sexual orientation;
for most, these inclinations will be weaker or more sporadic. Thus, the gay rights activists who
argue that one is "born gay" are partially right in that some people
are born with a certain biological orientation, but so are the anti-gay
activists who argue that homosexual activity is a choice, in that some people
who have milder homosexual inclinations biologically will have homosexual sex
if it is socially condoned and will not do so if it is not socially
condoned.
c.
Third,
marriage is not only a personal, private relationship between two people (and
their children, if any), but also a public relationship that is validated and
legitimated by the community.
d.
Fourth,
marriage as a public event is very often both a civil, legal event and a religious event.
e.
Fifth, and
finally, the Republican Party and a number of well-funded fundamentalist
Christian organizations have decided quite consciously to make homosexuality
and gay marriage a political issue, largely because they know that most
straight people are uncomfortable with homosexuality and thus think that this
will be a winning issue for them, giving them the political support necessary
to advance other, much less popular, positions.
2.
The key to dealing with the gay marriage
issue is to distinguish between the civil and the religious aspects of
marriage.
a.
That is,
any two persons, gay or straight, who wish to make a public, civil, legal
commitment to each other should be entitled to the same civil and legal
rights. Denying one group (gays)
such civil and legal rights would violate our basic notions of equal treatment
under the law and would do so by enshrining one religious doctrine regarding
homosexuality as official state policy, violating the separation of church and
state.
b.
The
question as to whether such a civil union is a marriage is another matter, one
more closely tied to religious issues. To the extent that a marriage is a
religious event, it is none of the government's business. Because of the long
historical association of marriage with religious sanction, for the government
to call a civil union a marriage would be to endorse a certain religious view
of marriage, just as declaring such a union not to be a marriage would be an endorsement
of a different religious doctrine. Hence, to be neutral regarding religious
doctrine, which the government should be, it should firmly state that it has no
opinion as to whether a civil union is a marriage--that's a question of religious
belief on which the government can and should take no stand.
c.
Speaking as
a member of a specific Christian denomination, I would hope that my
denomination would follow the general principle that JesusÕ central message was
that redemption comes through love and respect for God and for our fellow
people here on Earth. The two ÒgreatÓ commandments, to love God and to love your
neighbor as yourself, in my mind, supercede our interpretations of any
other specific injunctions in the Bible, especially those found in the Old Testament.
(This is not really a radical theological position: it is the rule by which most
present-day Christians hold slavery to be a violation of GodÕs
law, for example; since slavery is explicitly condoned in the Old Testament and
Jesus never speaks specifically on the question.) Hence, I believe that my
denomination should bless the unions of gay couples, provided that such couples
show the same kind of devotion to each other that straight couples are supposed
to show in order to earn the churchÕs blessing.