The Oldest Argument in America

There are three levels of government: local, state and federal. Perhaps the single longest running political argument in the United States is the struggle between folks who believe that the central seat of authority should lie in any one of those places. This debate was present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadephia, and it continues to dominate, in various ways, the debates this country has had over the past many years. Slavery as an issue was also framed as one of states' rights: should the federal government have the power to determine the slave or free status of a new state? It continues now - whenever the canard about having "some Washington bureaucrat" involved in the education/medical care/morality standards of a group of people, this is an argument for states rights.

There is a certain logic to the idea that the smaller the area being governed, the more responsive the government can be. On the flip side, the smaller the area governed, the more likely it is that the entities that are to be governed will be outside the jurisdiction or will move to be so if doing so will rid them of regulation. Thus, the broader area of government, the more likely it is that the regulation will have sufficient reach. Thus it can be said that the struggle can be thought of in terms of degree of scope.

Perhaps to give a more down to earth example, let's say I am a clothing manufacturer. If I make clothes for one family I can easily tailor the clothes to fit each member of the family. But, if I am the only manufacturer of clothing, then all the other folks in the community are going naked. So, I am very responsive, but the breadth of my coverage is very small. If I expand my operations to a whole community, I cannot take the time to tailor to each person, so I will make a set of clothing for a range of sizes. These will fit some people perfectly, some less so. There may even be those for whom I make no clothes that fit. My responsiveness has decreased, but my ability to cover more people has increased. As I increase the size of my operation, so do I decrease my ability to be responsive to individuals.

Obviously, there is some medium to be reached. There is some point on every issue where the balance is struck. Defense matters, for example, are a good example of a policy that is best enacted at the broadest possible level - we all want to be defended. On the other hand (in very simplistic terms) what does Nebraska need with a destroyer or submarine? In order to protect the oceans and coastal areas (again, I'm being simplistic) people who are in non-coastal areas have to pay for a navy. So it isn't a perfect fit, but in terms of the overall goal, defense, this misfit is not such a big deal. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of zoning, for example, it makes little sense to approach this on a federal basis. The national government simply does not have the resources to examine how every acre of land in the USA is zoned. The issues of zoning vary on a nearly neighborhood basis, and as such are handled locally. It is the issues that are not clearly under the aegis of local, state and federal governments that cause the problems.

I think it is clear that each issue needs to be individually scrutinized for the "best fit" with regards to the level of government that should help it. I think there also needs to be long looks at hybrid plans - plans that require a national standard (say some sort of educational proficiency) but have the implementation take place at a local level with funding coming from all three levels to ensure that there is the proverbial "level playing field" for poorer and richer districts. It is important not to approach these issues dogmatically (i.e. "Federal gummint is bad" or "only strong central government can be trusted to do what needs to be done").

I know this is sort of a toothless post - mostly I'm exploring my own thinking. Still, it is useful to look at this issue afresh. Perhaps the differences between states rights and federal authority aren't as far apart as we seem. I think the ends are the same, it is the means we are trying to work out.

Confirmation Wars

I watch the unfolding confirmation wars with mixed feelings. First of all, I have to give a little back history. When the Florida election debacle ended, I decided that I would make the best of it. Bush claimed to be a consensus builder and a man who could work both sides of the aisle. At first blush, there seemed little difference between Bush and Gore - on a political continuum, they seemed more alike than not. So maybe Bush was anti-abortion - I doubted that the Senate would let him get away with much, closely divided as it was (IIRC, once all was done, it was 50-50 with Cheney available to break ties). Finally, after eight increasingly shrill years of Clinton-bashing, I would trade a little conservatism for some peace and quiet. I figured if Gore were elected, it would be four or eight more years worth of manufactured scandals, increasingly noisy partisanship and little forward progress. So, I looked at Bush as a "not good thing", but certainly livable. I mean, what did I think would happen? Well, things happened all right, and I feel somewhat betrayed by Bush. Not just for the various injustices and downright untruths he's foisted off on me, but because he said he wanted to heal the divisions, bridge the ideological chasms and bring us together as one nation. Instead, I see us further divided than we were in November 2000 - and that is after the tragically unifying events of September 11, 2001. So, I'm bitter about being hoodwinked.

So, when Bush attempts to pack the court with like minded idealogues, I'm pretty unhappy about it. After seeing the amount of obstructionism that the Clinton White House fought the last six years of his presidency, I'm feeling like a scorched earth campaign is in order. Bush seems to like Old Testament justice, so let's eye for an eye him on these four most egregiously ideological choices. It feels satisfying to give 'em a taste of their own medicine.

On the other hand, I really want that peace and quiet. I would like to see people debate the issues without stooping to insult slinging. I'd like to find a place where folks with different ideas than mine discuss the pros and cons of their theories without starting to act like my kids. I'd like to find a really cogent argument for/against states rights. I'd like to hear from some folks who studied economics to talk about theories of economic stimulation. I'd like to see a site discussing the ups and downs of various legal arguments. Intelligent debate by intelligent people. Doggone it, I'd genuinely like to learn the ins and outs of the competing theories of government that separate us. Perhaps there is middle ground. Perhaps we can get together and find ways to make it all work.

So, if I want to restore a tone of civility to politics, it would seem a bad idea to block these four (now three) nominees. Of course, there are those partisans who want to "go nuclear" and use a parliamentary loophole to cut off this (and future) filibusters. And the other side threatens further measures to be even more obstructionist. It's sort of mutually assured destruction, but with Robert's Rules of Order instead of nukes.

When my two eldest girls are acting like this, I generally declare them both losers and neither one gets what they want (I've appropriated SO many Barbie dolls this way). In an earlier time, someone might have spanked them both and sent them to bed.

I was about to say that it is a shame no one is available to give the Democrats and Republicans the spanking they so richly deserve. I'm wrong though. There is someone - that would be us, the voters. Maybe if we got off our either apathetic or spectating behinds and ran against these bozos, their parties and their way of doing business, we might get things changed. I'll run for office, you run for office. Let's get out and vote for new blood, and not just the guy from the other party, but new blood from new parties with new ideas. We are the supreme power in this land - we control the executive and legislative branches, and through those two, we control the judicial. Punt the lot of them back to their homes and jobs and let's get new people in. Instead of politicians, lets get lawyers and teachers and steelworkers and cab drivers and programmers in office. We'll do our thing and go back to our old lives, to be replaced by more folks who serve as an avocation, not a vocation.

If only . . . .

Veteran's Day

I personally view war as the last of all options and generally, war is a hallmark of a failure of policy. This is stand I may discuss further at a later time - today it is not the topic I want to address.

General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is hell." I do not know the context in which he made that remark - certainly the torching of Atlanta and his scorched earth campaign was hellish enough. I do know that various tough guys (real and fictional) have used the quote to cavalierly describe the difficulties that they faced in doing some heroic act.

I view the quote somewhat more literally - war is an eternity of torment for people who fight in it. The fear, the unimaginable violence and the ease with which humans can become sub-human are sights no person should have to see. Those who fight in war see the worst that humanity has to offer. I wonder if any veteran has returned from war wholly unscarred by the experience. I believe that most veterans continue to bear the burden of what they witnessed in wartime until their death.

I also view those who have had to take up arms for our country as heroes. I may not agree with the policies that put us in war - in fact, I generally do not agree with them. That has no bearing on my regard for the men and women who must be the executors of the policy of war. These people, in my name, in your name, in the name of generations passed and generations yet to come set aside their plans, their hopes, their dreams, their very lives to take up arms and fight. That is a sacrifice on my behalf that demands respect.

I do not suggest soldiers are infallible, and I do not suggest that soldiers are paragons of virtue. If My Lai taught us anything, it taught us that the best men can do awful things when confronted by the horror of war. Regardless of that or other crimes American soldiers may have committed, those who go forth and fight on our behalf are deserving of a measure of respect and honor from each of us.

Let's also not forget that this is Veterans Day, not Memorial Day. This day commemorates all those who came home. While there is an air of solemnity here, there should also be an air of celebration. Not because they got out alive (though that is a good reason to be happy), but because of what they contributed after their service. People like Senators Kerrey and McCain, veterans both. People like Jessica Lynch and Shoshanna Johnson, veterans of our latest war, both ready to get on with their lives as citizens. Veterans should be celebrated not just for what they contributed during wartime, but also for what they continue to contribute each day.

Time To Get In the Game

Working on these various entries/essays/rants/whatevers has crystallized a desire in me to run for office. It seems to me that I can rant and rave here in the blogosphere (and I am doing so) but real change will only come if I will it to happen. In other words, change starts with me. And, rather than be a sideline critic, I think I'd be better off joining the fray. My ultimate goal is to be in a position to effect real change. Making an ultimate determination of what that means requires a lot of thinking and deciding. I could say I want to be President or a member of the House or Senate, and if I think the strong Federal system is the best way to help people, then that is my goal. On the other hand, if I think that the best way to affect change is to work on a state level, if I think the rise in states rights is a good idea, then perhaps state legislator or governor is more appropriate. I've not yet decided where I stand on that issue (or at least I'm not convinced of my pro-Federal stance).

I've also made a change in my personal politics. Though my car has been wearing a Green Party bumper sticker for a while now, I'm officially changing my party on my voter registration to unaffiliated. Since the Greens are not recognized in North Carolina this is as close as I can come to officially stating my membership in the party. Basically, despite what I see Howard Dean doing with his campaign, I still see too many fingerprints of the Democratic Leadership Council (i.e. Republican Lite) on the Democratic party. The Democrats have decided to move to the center so as to appeal to the broadest base of support. The problem is, this centrist policy ends up selling out unions, the poor, minorities and the environment all in the name of appealing to the center. There is an argument to be made that the Democrats represent true centrism versus the disguised theocracy/corporatocracy of the Republicans. As long as the electorate does not discriminate between the rhetoric of the Republican party and the reality of their policies, there is a logic to the Democratic position, especially when it comes to the presidency. Still, the needs of those lost by Democrats in their move to the center should be represented, and I think the Green party is best equipped to do that. I also think that for the sort of changes that need to be made in our political process, the two major parties are too entrenched to allow for that change. I'm not talking about armed insurrection, or adoption of a pure Vegan diet as national policy, but rather reform of the election process.

Two concepts I have found that capture my interest are "clean money" reform and Instant Runoff Voting. I think that a combination of these methods could really change the way we elect officials and even persuade more folks like me to run for office. This is ultimately the place we want to be. Atrios has a neat graphic up today. It is interesting to see that Dr. Dean has such great support in the small donation group. I think it imperative that this not be the exception, but rather the rule.

So, I am thinking of running for office here in Charlotte. It is a starting point, and as Molly Ivins put it to The Terminator - if you really want to help out and perform public service, run for school board or town council and learn how things work on the ground. By the way, I'm paraphrasing Ms. Ivins and not linking because her Creators.com website has no archive beyond the past three columns (about a week and a half). I will run as a Green when I run. I will set up a website and blog to talk about what I'm doing and why. I will stand for electoral reform, jobs, education and infrastructure. It should be an instructive experience for me.

Gaily We Move Along

Now, I'll state from the outset that I am a supporter of civil rights for gay couples. This means I believe that any rights and responsibilities I have gained by being a citizen and a married man should also accrue to gay individuals and couples. This does not mean special rights - it just means the same rights as me. As far as individual rights are concerned (with the notable exception of military service) the rights of homosexuals are fairly well protected by the fourteenth amendment. There may be issues with enforcing access to these rights, but the rights are pretty well defined. The rights that are not as well defined are the rights associated with gay couples. Heterosexual couples have long had a set of rights that accrues to them when they become married. These include things like joint filing of tax returns, rights of survivorship and the right to jointly carry insurance. These rights are denied gay couples. I have heard two arguments behind this. The first is a moral argument, based in literal interpretation of biblical text. The second is a question of legal process.

I am no biblical scholar. I believe my essay on Christian Fundamentalism makes that clear. I think that essay also makes it pretty clear that literal interpretations of what constitutes a sin does not fly with me. So, when I hear the outcry over various homosexuality related issues is primarily based on biblical injunctions against the behavior, I tend to tune out pretty quickly. For my reasoning along those lines, please refer to my earlier posting. I'll say that if someone is willing to accept every biblical decree at face value and without question, then they need to review the legal standing of women and the modern abolition of slavery as examples of how this literal interpretation has fallen to the social evolution of man. Regardless of my belief in social evolution and the rightness of my belief in equal protection and rights, I do recognize that churches are separate entities from government, a fact I am very grateful for. Recognizing that the church should not meddle in affairs of the state comes with the acceptance that the state should not meddle in affairs of the church whenever possible. Thus, if the various religions wish to prohibit the marriage of gays, there is little the state can (or should) do to force them to do so.

As for the second argument, the debate pretty much comes down to probabilities and "drawing a line somewhere" as a good friend and member of the bar told me. The reasoning is that every set of two people who live together is not necessarily a couple deserving of joint rights under law. For example, two people who are roommates should not have rights of inheritance, rights to visit in the hospital, the ability to be jointly insured and so on. These are rights reserved for people who are couples. The issue comes in when we try to define what is a "couple". In an effort to solve that problem, we have created the concept of marriage, which is the religious blessing of a couple. Among its other benefits, marriage bestows the rights attached to being a legally recognized couple. In addition to the religious acknowledgment of this status, there are rules regarding common law marriage, which basically recognizes that a man and woman who have spent a certain time together are granted the legal rights associated with marriage. Since I have earlier accepted the notion that the state cannot force religions to perform marriages of gays, I then turn to the ideal of some sort of civil partnership law. Here is where it gets sticky, according to my (former) lawyer friend (former lawyer that is, always my friend). Basically, the argument is that if two people are living together and they are opposite sexes, the odds are better that they are couple (as legally defined for purposes of various joint rights) than if they are two members of the same sex. This difference in probability is what causes the problem. In the absence of any objective test of "couplehood" the state has to use what objective tests it can to limit those seeking these joint rights.

Here is my objection to that test. As it stands now, marriage for heterosexual couples is little bar if any to those seeking to exploit the joint rights available to married couples. From the drive-up wedding chapels in Las Vegas, to quickie no-fault divorces, a man and woman can become a legally recognized couple pretty much at a whim, and dissolve that couple without much more effort. Thus, it is difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow these joinings are somehow more legally valid than just about anything else. I'm not saying that marriage isn't a special and sacred thing to those who enter it with good intentions, love and strength. I am saying that it is so ridiculously easy to marry and divorce in this country that to confer some special status on marriage is an ill-considered belief that all those who marry are doing so with the best of intentions.

The state has no way of determining who are deserving of status as a couple, either for heterosexual or homosexual partners. It is merely playing the odds when it says that couples of opposite sexes are more likely to be legitimate than couples of the same sex. It is playing those odds, it says, to avoid fraudulent claims of couplehood. Yet it accepts a claim of couplehood from two people who coughed up a few bucks in Vegas to have an overweight Elvis impersonator declare them husband and wife. If that is considered legitimate, I fail to see why some other legally binding status cannot be conferred to gay couples without stretching concerns over fraud any further than they are already stretched.