I was asked by a friend from work today about my bumper sticker. With some degree of friendly disappointment, they asked what I meant, and were somewhat unhappy with my response that it meant what it said, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.
So, I thought I'd take a moment and expound upon that. There were really three reasons cited for going to war in Iraq. I'll explain my arguments against them.
First up is the argument that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda or that he was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. This argument has been pretty effectively countered by none other than our President (registration required for article).
The second argument is that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program that was active and that he was planning to attack the United States imminently or that he was planning to sell these weapons to terrorists who would attack. There is a latin phrase, usually used in legal arguments that is applicable: res ipse loquitur. That means "the thing speaks for itself". There are no such weapons, there was no such program. They could have used them against us in March and they did not. Terrorists could have used them now as revenge and they have not. We have scoured the country and the best we could come up with was vial of botulinum toxin in some scientist's fridge. Since botulism bacteria is what causes food poisoning, there's a few frat house refrigerators that qualify as weapons labs, I'm sure.
With the failure of these two arguments, pro-war advocates usually fall back on the fact that Saddam Hussein was evil and that he needed to be removed from power for the good of Iraq. Well, that's fine - I do not argue that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was about as bad as a human can get, and his vile sons were worse. He is pretty much as evil a man as there is. But it is not United States policy to invade countries and right wrongs. Yes, the fact that Hussein is out of power is good, but that end does not justify our invasion of a sovereign nation.
If we have decided on a new policy of forcible removal of bad leaders, let's hear the announcement from the President. He can tell us when Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations are due for their invasion. We're not going to invade those nations, of course. It is not now, nor has it ever been in the 227 years since this nation was founded, American policy to violate the sovereignty of other nations because we do not approve of their leader or his actions. We are not the world's policeman, nor do I think we want to be.
So that is why I say No! to the attack on Iraq. There was no reason for it, unless you accept the premise that the United States should pass muster on all world leaders and forcibly remove those we do not approve of. I'm glad Saddam is captured - the world is a better place with him in prison. But that end does not justify the means. Ends can never justify means in a moral society.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Why Electoral Reform?
If you watch enough cop/lawyer dramas on TV, you will eventually hear some lawyer (defense lawyer) use the phrase "fruit of the poisoned tree". What this means is that once some part of the evidence is tainted by misconduct, not only is that evidence disallowed, but all the evidence discovered as a result of the disallowed evidence is also disallowed.
I tend to view election reform in much the same manner. From gerrymandering to what amounts to bribery to voting machines that are, from an IT perspective alone, poorly designed (no paper trail?!? Who are they kidding?) the political process has been terribly tainted at its wellspring, the participatory election. Thus, just about anything that flows from that (i.e. all federal, state and local government) is tainted.
Before any changes can be made that will address the growing issues of the day - healthcare, jobs, education, trade and so on - we have to remove the effects of the corrupted system of elections that now exists. To me that means two things - first, real, meaningful campaign finance reform and second, enticing a wider array of political views into the fray.
Campaign finance reform is crucial to changing the political landscape. Even if campain money isn't a quid pro quo directly, there is influence exerted by those who donate large sums of money. So, even if dollar x doesn't translate into vote y the elected official recognizes that the money he needs to return to office hangs by the thread of the donor's goodwill. In jeopardizing that goodwill, he jeopardizes his re-election. In effect, rather than being responsive to the concerns of his constituents, he becomes responsive to the concerns of his donors.
I am sensitive, though, to the rights of free speech given in the Constitution. As a sometime fan, sometime member of the ACLU, it is vital that we do not cause legitimate political opinion to be silenced. Funny thing is, we start getting into my least favorite thing, trying to quantify human motivation. If Bill Gates gives $200 to the Dubya for President fund, well, that's pretty obviously a political gesture of speech - he's offering support. If Bill Gates gives $250,000 to the RNC's Don't Vote For Anyone that Opposes This Platform (a front for a RNC Dubya support group), then there is the whiff of trying to buy something. So, by my VERY crude calculation, $200 donations are good and $250,000 are bad. Well, as long as I don't leave a gray area the size of Rhode Island, I reckon I've made my point.
In all seriousness, I try to understand how to work this out. I mean, should I view this by percent of net income, where for most folks $200 is a large sum and for The Bill a quarter million is bubble gum money? That is sort of silly, regardless of the income of the giver(s) the cost of a political campaign is pretty much static. To put it another way, the costs of running a campaign doesn't change just because your contributors are less affluent. So, trying to work out some sliding scale of appropriateness seems wrong.
Ultimately when anyone gives money to a political campaign, it is in the expectation that something will be given in return. For most folks that means they expect policies that mirror their own beliefs. For others, especially affluent others, this means more specific quids pro quo. The issue boils down to this - if money is the best way for voters to communicate with their elected officials, then those with the most money have the loudest megaphone. And folks, that ain't right.
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. I would like to look at the option of having no campaign contributions at all. What if we decided to publicly fund all elections? What if we mandated public funding of all political campaigns? What if we took advantage of the fact that the broadcast spectrum is leased from the public and require all broadcast media to donate a certain amount of airtime, which would be disbursed equally among all contenders for whatever office?
I'm not certain it would work, and I'm not certain it is consistent with the idea of free speech. But I want to think about it, and I'd like my voluminous readership to think about it too. And not just the "Wouldn't it be great if" thing, but a real, rubber meets the road kind of thinking.
I tend to view election reform in much the same manner. From gerrymandering to what amounts to bribery to voting machines that are, from an IT perspective alone, poorly designed (no paper trail?!? Who are they kidding?) the political process has been terribly tainted at its wellspring, the participatory election. Thus, just about anything that flows from that (i.e. all federal, state and local government) is tainted.
Before any changes can be made that will address the growing issues of the day - healthcare, jobs, education, trade and so on - we have to remove the effects of the corrupted system of elections that now exists. To me that means two things - first, real, meaningful campaign finance reform and second, enticing a wider array of political views into the fray.
Campaign finance reform is crucial to changing the political landscape. Even if campain money isn't a quid pro quo directly, there is influence exerted by those who donate large sums of money. So, even if dollar x doesn't translate into vote y the elected official recognizes that the money he needs to return to office hangs by the thread of the donor's goodwill. In jeopardizing that goodwill, he jeopardizes his re-election. In effect, rather than being responsive to the concerns of his constituents, he becomes responsive to the concerns of his donors.
I am sensitive, though, to the rights of free speech given in the Constitution. As a sometime fan, sometime member of the ACLU, it is vital that we do not cause legitimate political opinion to be silenced. Funny thing is, we start getting into my least favorite thing, trying to quantify human motivation. If Bill Gates gives $200 to the Dubya for President fund, well, that's pretty obviously a political gesture of speech - he's offering support. If Bill Gates gives $250,000 to the RNC's Don't Vote For Anyone that Opposes This Platform (a front for a RNC Dubya support group), then there is the whiff of trying to buy something. So, by my VERY crude calculation, $200 donations are good and $250,000 are bad. Well, as long as I don't leave a gray area the size of Rhode Island, I reckon I've made my point.
In all seriousness, I try to understand how to work this out. I mean, should I view this by percent of net income, where for most folks $200 is a large sum and for The Bill a quarter million is bubble gum money? That is sort of silly, regardless of the income of the giver(s) the cost of a political campaign is pretty much static. To put it another way, the costs of running a campaign doesn't change just because your contributors are less affluent. So, trying to work out some sliding scale of appropriateness seems wrong.
Ultimately when anyone gives money to a political campaign, it is in the expectation that something will be given in return. For most folks that means they expect policies that mirror their own beliefs. For others, especially affluent others, this means more specific quids pro quo. The issue boils down to this - if money is the best way for voters to communicate with their elected officials, then those with the most money have the loudest megaphone. And folks, that ain't right.
Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way. I would like to look at the option of having no campaign contributions at all. What if we decided to publicly fund all elections? What if we mandated public funding of all political campaigns? What if we took advantage of the fact that the broadcast spectrum is leased from the public and require all broadcast media to donate a certain amount of airtime, which would be disbursed equally among all contenders for whatever office?
I'm not certain it would work, and I'm not certain it is consistent with the idea of free speech. But I want to think about it, and I'd like my voluminous readership to think about it too. And not just the "Wouldn't it be great if" thing, but a real, rubber meets the road kind of thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)