I was invited today to go to a presentation by a judge addressing the importance of maintaining the presence of monuments of the Ten Commandments at courthouses across the country. Unfortunately, I think this is an issue which is largely much ado about nothing. Those monuments were originally placed as part of a marketing campaign for the movie, The Ten Commandments (you know, with Charlton Heston). The idea of having these monuments took on a life of its own, and many others were installed at courthouses. Personally, I don't believe that nearly 200 years worth of jurisprudence was less just or somehow less "correct" because these monuments weren't present. I similarly don't see any reason why our jurisprudence would be less just or "correct" if they're removed.
Furthermore, those who argue that their presence is important as a recognition of the influence of Judeo-Christian values on our jurisprudence are woefully misinformed. First, our common law heritage stems either from pre-Christian Saxon law, or on the interests of an invading and occupational force, i.e. the French conquest of the Saxons. Perhaps even a mix of these two. One would be hard pressed to argue that either is very Christian. Second, the very notion of a Constitution, written and enforced by a community which governs itself, stems from Enlightenment philosophy. The Enlightenment philosophers were, by and large, rejecting the Judeo-Christian tradition and exploring ancient "pagan" ideas. Thus, our Constitution was only influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition to the extent that Enlightenment philosophers were reacting against it.
The only justification I can conceive of to care about their presence is that they are monuments to a historical and influential concept of justice. Of course, there are many such concepts of justice (the Hammurabi Code anyone?) which could equally be made into monuments alongside these monuments to the Ten Commandments. This would have the added effect of making our courthouses veritable monuments to justice, implying their natural extension from these historical manifestations of justice. However, I suspect those who want the Ten Commandments displayed at courthouses would be appalled at this notion. They simply want the rest of society to swallow their own religious notions because they're backed by the full force of the State. Whether I agree with their religious views or not, this impulse is just wrong.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Re. the Republican Candidates
Michele Bachmann - In short, she's CRAZY. She has a nice face and knows popular social conservative talking points. However, when pressed to any extent, she collapses. She has a tendency to make things up and get her facts extremely wrong. For example, in the latest debate she cited Thomas Jefferson as an authority for her view that the Constitution does not separate church and state. While she is correct that the Constitution does not explicitly use that phrase, Thomas Jefferson famously did in a letter which the Supreme Court has often cited in cases involving religious issues. She is far too extreme to be good for the country, and coupled with her lack of intellectual capacity, she should be disqualified as both ineligible for the office of President as well as unelectable.
Herman Cain - Now, here's a fun candidate. He is aware of many domestic issues and is in tune with the conservative base without being as extreme as Bachmann. His policy proposals are intriguing if not completely persuasive. At the very least, he could shake things up a bit as President. Also, his quips about Washington not working because of career politicians is a nice piece of populist appeal. Furthermore, he has a fun, Southern Baptist Preacher presentation and a refreshing sense of humor. However, he is completely out of his depth regarding anything in foreign policy. He does not know the issues at all and as an actual president would be far too subject to manipulation on this front for my tastes. He might be a good vice-presidential candidate, but perhaps not. Mr. Cain would not be a good President, but the verdict is still out for any lower office.
Newt Gingrich - What the other candidates might lack in intellect, Gingrich more than makes up for by simply being present. He has extensive experience and knows how Washington works. While this seems to be the antithesis of Mr. Cain's populist appeal, Mr. Gingrich's inside knowledge is actually an asset. He is aware of what can be realistically accomplished and exactly how to achieve it. He knows the weaknesses and strengths of various policy proposals and has some intriguing ideas of his own. His current status as moderator of the debate moderator's is fun, because it reminds voters and the other candidates that they can think outside of the box. Mr. Gingrich is a little too washed up and has a little too much baggage to be a legitimate candidate for President, but he would be a great asset as a vice-president - not just a vice-presidential candidate. As a candidate he would be able to attack the opponents effectively and knowledgeably. As an actual vice-president he would be able to support the Republican Senate leaders and round up the necessary support for policy initiatives.
More to come next week.
Herman Cain - Now, here's a fun candidate. He is aware of many domestic issues and is in tune with the conservative base without being as extreme as Bachmann. His policy proposals are intriguing if not completely persuasive. At the very least, he could shake things up a bit as President. Also, his quips about Washington not working because of career politicians is a nice piece of populist appeal. Furthermore, he has a fun, Southern Baptist Preacher presentation and a refreshing sense of humor. However, he is completely out of his depth regarding anything in foreign policy. He does not know the issues at all and as an actual president would be far too subject to manipulation on this front for my tastes. He might be a good vice-presidential candidate, but perhaps not. Mr. Cain would not be a good President, but the verdict is still out for any lower office.
Newt Gingrich - What the other candidates might lack in intellect, Gingrich more than makes up for by simply being present. He has extensive experience and knows how Washington works. While this seems to be the antithesis of Mr. Cain's populist appeal, Mr. Gingrich's inside knowledge is actually an asset. He is aware of what can be realistically accomplished and exactly how to achieve it. He knows the weaknesses and strengths of various policy proposals and has some intriguing ideas of his own. His current status as moderator of the debate moderator's is fun, because it reminds voters and the other candidates that they can think outside of the box. Mr. Gingrich is a little too washed up and has a little too much baggage to be a legitimate candidate for President, but he would be a great asset as a vice-president - not just a vice-presidential candidate. As a candidate he would be able to attack the opponents effectively and knowledgeably. As an actual vice-president he would be able to support the Republican Senate leaders and round up the necessary support for policy initiatives.
More to come next week.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Liberte
Liberty - freedom of action. There are many different interpretations of liberty, with some going so far as to advocate Anarchism, the absence of any systematic restrictions on the actions of individuals. Oddly enough, such an extreme seems to actually result in less freedom of action. Without any laws, there is no assurance that any two individuals are interacting with at least a basic common set of norms. Thus, a state of complete anarchy will be roughly synonymous with Thomas Hobbes' state of nature in which "every man is enemy to every man" and "wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them. In such condition there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the Earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." It is a seemingly strange paradox that liberty depends, to some extent at least, upon the restrictions which society places upon the individual.
The challenge, then, is to determine to what extent liberty relies on restrictions. A failure to determine the boundaries may inadvertently result in an unwarranted amount of restrictions and the strangling and death of liberty. I submit, however, that there is no hard and fast rule which delineates the appropriate boundaries. In fact, my talk of boundaries is misleading. Rather, one must recognize the essential dependency of the one on the other. Just as liberty depends upon law and order, law and order depend upon liberty. Should the pendulum swing too far in the direction of restrictions, the populace will revolt. I do not think that concerns over too much liberty (in such an instance, it might be better to call it simply license rather than liberty) or concerns over too much law (repression) will ever be settled. Rather, one must constantly evaluate any given law (or even the general legal framework) to determine whether it increases or decreases the general liberty of society.
The challenge, then, is to determine to what extent liberty relies on restrictions. A failure to determine the boundaries may inadvertently result in an unwarranted amount of restrictions and the strangling and death of liberty. I submit, however, that there is no hard and fast rule which delineates the appropriate boundaries. In fact, my talk of boundaries is misleading. Rather, one must recognize the essential dependency of the one on the other. Just as liberty depends upon law and order, law and order depend upon liberty. Should the pendulum swing too far in the direction of restrictions, the populace will revolt. I do not think that concerns over too much liberty (in such an instance, it might be better to call it simply license rather than liberty) or concerns over too much law (repression) will ever be settled. Rather, one must constantly evaluate any given law (or even the general legal framework) to determine whether it increases or decreases the general liberty of society.
Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternite
Liberty, Equality, and Fellowship - ideals which are inextricably bound with the tradition of Liberalism, and therefore, to both the right and left of American politics. As one can imagine, these principles are not always compatible and many attempts have been made to create a completely coherent system based upon them, with varying results. By no stretch of the imagination do I take any particular interpretation as authoritative. They are simply informative in the development of my own views regarding the matter. Similarly, I do not expect others to take what I write regarding liberty, equality, and fellowship as in any way authoritative. I do hope, however, that others find what I have to say to be informative, insightful, and helpful in the development of their own views.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Political Spectrum in Modern America
I stated in my previous post that "the far right is... Statist," while "the far left is... Anarchist." However, the right and left wings of modern American politics mix and match various elements from these two extremes. The distinction which I am drawing is that between the right and left of the general political spectrum and the right and left of modern American politics. Modern American politics has a complex history, but I believe it is safe to say that, generally, the modern American political spectrum has its origins in what is a rather Leftist tradition - Liberalism. Liberalism can be understood as a belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Accordingly, Liberals tend to support such things as constitutional government, democratic representation, natural (or human) rights, and various other liberties including free trade, free speech and freedom of religion.
The American left wing tends to stress civil liberties, but they balk at what was a hallmark of early, or Classical, Liberalism - freedom in economic relations. The American left argues for economic regulation (and sometimes outright governmental orchestration) in an effort to achieve economic equality and general freedom (liberty) from wants, i.e., food, shelter, clothing. The American right wing, on the other hand, tends to emphasize freedom in economic relations, sometimes in neglect and to the detriment of the indigent, while arguing for greater social controls in the interest of order and stability. Indeed, without law, order, or stability, people cannot enjoy liberties but, rather, are restricted in the actions which are practically open to them. Is either side "correct?" Probably not. However, I take great comfort in the knowledge that, despite the sometimes vitriolic rhetoric, both sides in American politics are grounded in the same respect for liberty and are therefore both striving to create a freer society.
The American left wing tends to stress civil liberties, but they balk at what was a hallmark of early, or Classical, Liberalism - freedom in economic relations. The American left argues for economic regulation (and sometimes outright governmental orchestration) in an effort to achieve economic equality and general freedom (liberty) from wants, i.e., food, shelter, clothing. The American right wing, on the other hand, tends to emphasize freedom in economic relations, sometimes in neglect and to the detriment of the indigent, while arguing for greater social controls in the interest of order and stability. Indeed, without law, order, or stability, people cannot enjoy liberties but, rather, are restricted in the actions which are practically open to them. Is either side "correct?" Probably not. However, I take great comfort in the knowledge that, despite the sometimes vitriolic rhetoric, both sides in American politics are grounded in the same respect for liberty and are therefore both striving to create a freer society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)