This article from time.com about Obama's funding of high-speed rail tickles one of my secret ambitions: competitive mass transit in America. Whoah, whoah, whoah, you're saying... You're thinking I'm a small government guy. I've said I'm no republican but that I am definitely conservative economically. The thing is, I've established that I have no problem paying the government in exchange for certain services, and infrastructure is one of those things. I realize that in a laissez-faire capitalist economy roads and rails still get built by entities that need them at some point, and get maintained... somehow... At least in the interest of the market. I just don't quite buy it... I actually believe there are some questions the free market fails to answer in a way. As far as I'm concerned mass transit is one of those things.
If you try to frame a mass transit solution as a normal business problem you run into a sort of paradox. It only works if you have enough riders to make it efficient and you only get enough riders when the service level reaches a point that entices people to become riders. A capitalist would say that the market would select that solution if it made sense, but I'm convinced that any reasonable business man would look at the investment and tell you to take a hike. The market economy didn't build the Interstate Highway System (Uncle Sam did), but I'm sure glad we have it now. I feel the same way about mass transit, and personally very much favor rail.
I spent a year of college living in Tokyo, Japan, and it made me a firm believer in the social benefits of efficient mass transit. I'm guessing there are few or no cities with a more extensive rail network than Tokyo. If you're interested, here is a rail map of Tokyo in English. Then there's intercity train service in Japan, from the famed bullet trains (actually called Shinkansen) to commuter electric trains on shorter routes. And if that's not interesting enough, the thing I found truly staggering was that smaller Japanese cities and towns also have rail service... Admittedly that's easier in a country as densely populated as Japan, if compared to the vast spaces Americans live in. But maybe it sets a dreamer to dreamin' a little bit.
As it happens, I remember the day that Obama announced he'd fund high speed rail investment. Initially it elicited a sort of anti-socialist/anti-big government groan from me... But I read the article twice. I stared intently at the maps they released. I dug a little deeper into internet resources to research what they were thinking. It set me to dreamin'. Ever since I can't help but spend some small amount of time each day to imagining better rail service (intercity and local service) in America, and despite my capitalist proclivities I think government resources are the best route to getting it.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Japan's PM Hatoyama Resigns & Thoughts on US Military Presence on Okinawa
It was announced today that Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is resigning his post most likely due to his failure to uphold is promise to remove the US military presence from Okinawa. He did try to address the issue but ultimately decided that the base would stay. It's a reasonable question to consider if he made the decision due to pressure from the US, Japanese security concerns, or concerns specific to conditions on Okinawa itself.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Clarification on Korea and China
I had an opportunity to talk to Dusty a bit last night regarding the escalating tensions between North and South Korea, and it became clear that I'd been unclear on what I meant by referring to China as the wildcard in the situation... I will try to clear up what I think about China's role in Korea here.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Getting a Little Scary on the Korean Peninsula
Nearly lost among headline's of Lee DeWyze's American Idol victory and (albeit significant and important) news on the BP oil spill in the Gulf, is what I think is the biggest development on the Korean Peninsula I can remember. Almost exactly two months ago the 1200t South Korean corvette Cheonan broke in two and sank after an explosion at her stern. 46 of her 104 man crew were killed. An investigation was performed and despite hopes to the contrary, when the wreckage was raised the presence of remnants of a North Korean torpedo have confirmed that the Cheonan was deliberately sunk by hostile action (in this case suspected to have been a torpedo delivered by a North Korean Yeono-class minisub).
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Trying to Make Some Sense out of the Tea Party Movement
Is anyone else out there struggling a little with how to feel about the Tea Party Movement? I have this feeling it's a bit natural to struggle with what appears to be an actual grass roots movement... It actually has no center and no leading authorities. Anyone can go to a "Tea Party" but you can't really go to the Tea Party. The Tea Partiers have certainly gotten some attention in the media so it's hard to miss that they exist, and I think they've presented the media outlets (all of whom seem to show a certain bias one way or the other) with a little bit of a problem-- they too appear to have no idea how they should address the movement.
I decided to do some research on the thing, and with me that means a quick jaunt over to wikipedia. Their article indicates that it's a populist movement that arose early in 2009 in response to the 2008 bailouts and 2009 stimulus package. In general, the article states, the movement appears to be focused on constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. I am a very big fan of all three of these ideas.
On the other hand, the article goes on to discuss some of the controversy surrounding the movement. They indicate that some believe the movement is actually an example of "astroturfing." Other than the carpet that was put down in the Astrodome, I had no idea what that meant. So, I went back to the wikipedian well and their article on astroturfing defines the practice as, "political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." I'm worried that even if the movement isn't an example of astroturfing, that it could be easily co-opted and turned into an example of astroturfing. The recent appearance of Sarah Palin (who I don't think believes in those things the movement is supposed to be focused on) in the town I live in, with a lot of "Tea Party" sentiment, has reinforced that particular fear.
In the end, I don't want the Tea Party Movement to turn out to be the crazy end of the Republic Party in disguise-- or other unsavory elements: homophobic, xenophobic, racist, or otherwise. This is because I like the Tea Party rhetoric and am encouraged that apparently a lot of other Americans do too.
I decided to do some research on the thing, and with me that means a quick jaunt over to wikipedia. Their article indicates that it's a populist movement that arose early in 2009 in response to the 2008 bailouts and 2009 stimulus package. In general, the article states, the movement appears to be focused on constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. I am a very big fan of all three of these ideas.
On the other hand, the article goes on to discuss some of the controversy surrounding the movement. They indicate that some believe the movement is actually an example of "astroturfing." Other than the carpet that was put down in the Astrodome, I had no idea what that meant. So, I went back to the wikipedian well and their article on astroturfing defines the practice as, "political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." I'm worried that even if the movement isn't an example of astroturfing, that it could be easily co-opted and turned into an example of astroturfing. The recent appearance of Sarah Palin (who I don't think believes in those things the movement is supposed to be focused on) in the town I live in, with a lot of "Tea Party" sentiment, has reinforced that particular fear.
In the end, I don't want the Tea Party Movement to turn out to be the crazy end of the Republic Party in disguise-- or other unsavory elements: homophobic, xenophobic, racist, or otherwise. This is because I like the Tea Party rhetoric and am encouraged that apparently a lot of other Americans do too.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
My (Over-)Simplified Model of Government
The government, in its most basic form, is just another business-- or maybe more accurately a not-for-profit. Its customers (the citizens of a nation) employ it to provide certain services or products. The citizens (customers) convert their wealth into government revenue by paying taxes and fees back to the government (the business). The real questions about government then become how nimbly can the government adjust to the changes in the service profile their citizens require, how well can the government provide those services, and will the government be able to fund the activity through a level of tax collection acceptable to their citizens.
In such a model government employees exist only to carry out the supply of services to a citizen... So why then is government structure important? Well, government structures and organizations are going to be more or less effective in understanding the needs and expectations of their citizens. The ideal structure would provide the citizen-desired services exactly when they are wanted and at least cost. The other side of the coin is how are revenues are collected by the government, or to put it another way, tax structure. To my way of thinking taxes should serve only one purpose: to deliver the necessary coin to pay for the services we want. Any other defined objective for a tax is going to drive inefficiency into the system and waste resources.
So, my over-simplified solution is to start discussing things in terms of what I described above. I believe that if we all approached government in this way, we better establish government goals, better define the expenditures required to achieve those goals, and then execute. In future posts I will explore what services I believe the government should provide and why, as well as how I believe they should collect taxes to secure the revenue needed to provide those services.
In such a model government employees exist only to carry out the supply of services to a citizen... So why then is government structure important? Well, government structures and organizations are going to be more or less effective in understanding the needs and expectations of their citizens. The ideal structure would provide the citizen-desired services exactly when they are wanted and at least cost. The other side of the coin is how are revenues are collected by the government, or to put it another way, tax structure. To my way of thinking taxes should serve only one purpose: to deliver the necessary coin to pay for the services we want. Any other defined objective for a tax is going to drive inefficiency into the system and waste resources.
So, my over-simplified solution is to start discussing things in terms of what I described above. I believe that if we all approached government in this way, we better establish government goals, better define the expenditures required to achieve those goals, and then execute. In future posts I will explore what services I believe the government should provide and why, as well as how I believe they should collect taxes to secure the revenue needed to provide those services.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Political Correctness and Political Parties
Two things really really bother me about the modern American political landscape. Political correctness and political parties. One I view as an unnecessary evil, and the other an expedient but unpleasant evil.
Political Correctness
While I was being politicized/socialized at Shanghai American School and home in the mid to late 90s political correctness was not a particular concern of mine. In both forums I was free to ask questions or criticize statements without any fear of disturbing the forum participants' sensibilities. I'm not sure I realized it at first, but this all changed rather quickly after I arrived at Bradley University. In personal conversation I found that only some individuals were interested in serious discourse on certain topics (history, politics, religion, culture all spring to mind) with the rest seeming to be completely unwilling to listen, discuss, argue, persuade, or even get damned mad about those topics. It was as if those topics didn't even exist... Instead I found myself passionately (and to my way of thinking appropriately) arguing things like the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball, or the relative merits (or in my estimation, the lack thereof) of Rob Thomas as a musician.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is the concept of political correctness. To quote the definition on dictionary.com (who references the Random House Dictionary), politically correct means "Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology." Another definition dictionary.com definition pulled from American Heritage expands that to include class as an issue and specifies that to support broad changes in social, political, and educational circles. These definitions indicate obvious bias that I didn't expect. I had figured the definition would indicate that people don't address those topics out of respect for others' feelings, I hadn't ever realized there was a presupposition
The concept is that there already is an answer and so the political landscape should change to reflect that answer. How can one debate anything when there already is an answer? If one cannot debate or study these things, then how is one free to choose what they believe? If one cannot choose what they believe then how can they be free in the most basic sense? If someone else has already done your thinking for you... What is the purpose of thought itself? If one cannot think, then how are we different from our pets, or, for that matter, from a potted plant?
I'm pretty sure I knew the term "political correctness" before I went to college. And I think, probably to some degree, that I adhered to it in regular social situations... But I think that the academic environment at Bradley very likely left me frustrated at the lack of openness to discourse. My discontent found legs at some point when someone forwarded me a speech that Charlton Heston gave at Harvard Law School. There is a transcript here. The opinions of Charlton Heston are not the topic that interested me (nor do I believe I agree with him on everything), but rather his equation of political correctness to tyranny. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I fiercely agreed.
Political correctness isn't wrong because it makes people feel good or because it reduces the frequency of conflict between people. It's wrong because it limits everyone's ability to discuss important topics. It limits their ability to exchange the ideas they would use to change their world. In the end, I think it limits your ability to think if you let it. It makes you less free. As such, I am a staunch foe of political correctness, and I will do my best to never use it here.
Political Parties
The other generalized concept is a very unfortunate reality, and, because they are so incredibly efficient, one I am hard-pressed to believe we can shake ourselves of-- political parties. Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely opposed to political parties and political machines. They believed, and correctly so, that political parties would allow the many to be easily swayed via the tools of powerful individuals "behind" a party. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it adroitly in his letter to Francis Hopkinson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
That is exactly the thing I would express, if only I were such a writer. Modern America is defined, politically, by two dominant parties, Republican and Democratic... There are a few minor parties about, some that even win a seat now and again. There are a couple of parties who really do not express a message similar to the dominant two, such as the Green Party (environmentalists) or the Libertarian Party (nigh-on anarchists)-- as well as a couple of completely ridiculous parties, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Yep, the Happy Green Nazis. The rest, unfortunately, seem to be parties which appear to be merely more extreme versions of the two dominant parties. If you would like to research a little more deeply on minor parties in the United States, Ron Gunzburger's website has briefs and links for a lot of parties.
Having been sidetracked by the minor party discussion, let us consider our current climate in the United States. There are two defining parties, and I suspect neither does a great job representing their constituency. It seems like most people don't particularly trust or care for either one. Now that we've had some time to digest the Obama Presidency, approval ratings (particularly of the legislative branch) are beginning to fall as the euphoria of a major change wears off. I certainly don't like either party. I more often agree with the Republicans, I suppose, but also find a number of their platforms and positions to be completely reprehensible.
That's the thing, too. If I express that I don't particularly care for President Obama's rhetoric, then people assume I'm a Republican. Parties are another thing that seems to limit our ability to engage in an exchange of ideas. One statement associates you with a party that carries a certain platform and it's assumed then that you agree with the rest of that platform. If you so limit your thoughts to that of a party, how can you be properly heard? If you assume the person with whom you are debating something is in such a way limited, how can you properly hear them?
I am, as I believe Thomas Jefferson believed, unwilling to become a slave to a party or its dogma. We should all act as agents interested in exchanging ideas with our peers to best form American policy in a democratic fashion. Political parties, it would seem, can only limit our ability to freely debate our beliefs and reasonably synthesize government.
Political Correctness
While I was being politicized/socialized at Shanghai American School and home in the mid to late 90s political correctness was not a particular concern of mine. In both forums I was free to ask questions or criticize statements without any fear of disturbing the forum participants' sensibilities. I'm not sure I realized it at first, but this all changed rather quickly after I arrived at Bradley University. In personal conversation I found that only some individuals were interested in serious discourse on certain topics (history, politics, religion, culture all spring to mind) with the rest seeming to be completely unwilling to listen, discuss, argue, persuade, or even get damned mad about those topics. It was as if those topics didn't even exist... Instead I found myself passionately (and to my way of thinking appropriately) arguing things like the value of On-Base Percentage in baseball, or the relative merits (or in my estimation, the lack thereof) of Rob Thomas as a musician.
I'm pretty sure that the reason for this is the concept of political correctness. To quote the definition on dictionary.com (who references the Random House Dictionary), politically correct means "Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology." Another definition dictionary.com definition pulled from American Heritage expands that to include class as an issue and specifies that to support broad changes in social, political, and educational circles. These definitions indicate obvious bias that I didn't expect. I had figured the definition would indicate that people don't address those topics out of respect for others' feelings, I hadn't ever realized there was a presupposition
The concept is that there already is an answer and so the political landscape should change to reflect that answer. How can one debate anything when there already is an answer? If one cannot debate or study these things, then how is one free to choose what they believe? If one cannot choose what they believe then how can they be free in the most basic sense? If someone else has already done your thinking for you... What is the purpose of thought itself? If one cannot think, then how are we different from our pets, or, for that matter, from a potted plant?
I'm pretty sure I knew the term "political correctness" before I went to college. And I think, probably to some degree, that I adhered to it in regular social situations... But I think that the academic environment at Bradley very likely left me frustrated at the lack of openness to discourse. My discontent found legs at some point when someone forwarded me a speech that Charlton Heston gave at Harvard Law School. There is a transcript here. The opinions of Charlton Heston are not the topic that interested me (nor do I believe I agree with him on everything), but rather his equation of political correctness to tyranny. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I fiercely agreed.
Political correctness isn't wrong because it makes people feel good or because it reduces the frequency of conflict between people. It's wrong because it limits everyone's ability to discuss important topics. It limits their ability to exchange the ideas they would use to change their world. In the end, I think it limits your ability to think if you let it. It makes you less free. As such, I am a staunch foe of political correctness, and I will do my best to never use it here.
Political Parties
The other generalized concept is a very unfortunate reality, and, because they are so incredibly efficient, one I am hard-pressed to believe we can shake ourselves of-- political parties. Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely opposed to political parties and political machines. They believed, and correctly so, that political parties would allow the many to be easily swayed via the tools of powerful individuals "behind" a party. I believe Thomas Jefferson said it adroitly in his letter to Francis Hopkinson:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
That is exactly the thing I would express, if only I were such a writer. Modern America is defined, politically, by two dominant parties, Republican and Democratic... There are a few minor parties about, some that even win a seat now and again. There are a couple of parties who really do not express a message similar to the dominant two, such as the Green Party (environmentalists) or the Libertarian Party (nigh-on anarchists)-- as well as a couple of completely ridiculous parties, like the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Yep, the Happy Green Nazis. The rest, unfortunately, seem to be parties which appear to be merely more extreme versions of the two dominant parties. If you would like to research a little more deeply on minor parties in the United States, Ron Gunzburger's website has briefs and links for a lot of parties.
Having been sidetracked by the minor party discussion, let us consider our current climate in the United States. There are two defining parties, and I suspect neither does a great job representing their constituency. It seems like most people don't particularly trust or care for either one. Now that we've had some time to digest the Obama Presidency, approval ratings (particularly of the legislative branch) are beginning to fall as the euphoria of a major change wears off. I certainly don't like either party. I more often agree with the Republicans, I suppose, but also find a number of their platforms and positions to be completely reprehensible.
That's the thing, too. If I express that I don't particularly care for President Obama's rhetoric, then people assume I'm a Republican. Parties are another thing that seems to limit our ability to engage in an exchange of ideas. One statement associates you with a party that carries a certain platform and it's assumed then that you agree with the rest of that platform. If you so limit your thoughts to that of a party, how can you be properly heard? If you assume the person with whom you are debating something is in such a way limited, how can you properly hear them?
I am, as I believe Thomas Jefferson believed, unwilling to become a slave to a party or its dogma. We should all act as agents interested in exchanging ideas with our peers to best form American policy in a democratic fashion. Political parties, it would seem, can only limit our ability to freely debate our beliefs and reasonably synthesize government.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Political Writing
It probably doesn't seem like it, based on the subject matter of previous posts, but I started this blog to write about politics. The thing is, I don't think Americans are comfortable enough talking about what they believe in. Political Correctness has turned most things worth debating into taboo subjects. Dusty started his blog, and told me how easy it was, and the next day I read an article regarding public health-care that so incensed me by the way it was constructed that I saved the link so I could come home, make a blog, and rant about that particular article.
I never did write about it. It's a little uncomfortable to write what I'm thinking about when it comes to serious topics like these. The problem being that that's falling victim to the same fears about PCness that keep people from engaging in discourse about these subjects. As such, I've resolved to put myself right and start blogging about these topics. This post is one small first step towards that goal.
I never did write about it. It's a little uncomfortable to write what I'm thinking about when it comes to serious topics like these. The problem being that that's falling victim to the same fears about PCness that keep people from engaging in discourse about these subjects. As such, I've resolved to put myself right and start blogging about these topics. This post is one small first step towards that goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)