This is the latest version of my list of biographies - what I have read and what I plan to read. Once again, You might notice the lack of women and people of color on here. I am working on it, though in some cases there just aren't great books out there.
Read
George Washington: I read His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. It was fine, though I get the sense that Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow is more comprehensive.
John Adams: John Adams by David McCullough is an amazing book. Period.
Andrew Jackson: I read American Lion by John Meacham. It focuses on Jackson's presidency, so it isn't a full biography. I regret choosing this book though. It spent more time on gossip than important policy and refused to engage in much criticism of the Indian removal policy or any analysis of the national bank decision. How this book won the Pulitzer is beyond me. I should have read Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands.
Abraham Lincoln: Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin is everyone's favorite biography. But after reading the biography of William Seward, I feel I need a different perspective as well.
William Seward: I recently finished Seward: Lincoln's Indispensible Man by Walter Stahr. This was a father / son book club book and it was pretty good. The prose was sparse but not boring and it moved at a pretty good pace.
Ulyses S. Grant: I read H.W. Brands's new Grant biography The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. It was overall a fine book. It felt like American Experience in book form.
James Garfield: I don't think I can count Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President by Candice Mallard as a biography. Then again, Garfield's presidency was so short, it's hard to see a reason for something much longer. Anyway, it was a good introduction and maybe someday I'll read Garfield by Allan Peskin or James A. Garfield (The American Presidents #20) by Ira Rutkow.
Woodrow Wilson: I read Woodrow Wilson: A Biography by John Milton Cooper, Jr. It was a decent biography - not too exciting but it served its purpose and seemed to be the best option available.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: I read Traitor to His Class* by H.W. Brands. It was a good biography. I didn't read No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin even though it is well-regarded because it was more about the home front during the war than an actual biography. There is also FDR by Jean Edward Smith for those who don't want to read Brands.
Harry Truman: I read Truman by David McCullough. It is a really good read and seems pretty fair. I have heard friends say that after they read this book, Truman was their new favorite president. I certainly don't feel that way. But I do respect him, which I didn't think was going to be the case going into it.
Malcolm X: I have read both The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley and Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable. I think everyone should read both. The Autobiography gives Malcolm's view (with some editing by Alex Haley) whereas Manning Marable's biography should be considered more objective and also adds a lot of historical context and analysis.
To Read
Thomas Jefferson: I don't know which book I will read about Thomas Jefferson, though to be honest, he is very low on my list of priorities. The two biographies I know about are Thomas Jefferson by RB Bernstein and American Sphinx by Joseph Ellis. Also, The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed (professor at New York Law School) won the Pulitzer Prize. I haven't read it, but have it on my list (and higher up than either of his biographies).
Alexander Hamilton: I definitely want to read Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. It is very well regarded.
Benjamin Franklin: I think Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson is the better book because I have seen it more often. I like H.W. Brands, so I am sure his book (The First American) is fine.
Frederick Douglass: His autobiographies seem to be the best things to read on him. However, there are three. I cannot tell which one is the best, so I am going to read the latest of the three: The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.
Grover Cleveland: He is not the most exciting president, but his two non-consecutive presidencies span 12 years, so he seems like a good person to read about to learn more about 1884-1897. There are no well-reviewed biographies, but Grover Cleveland by Henry Graff - part of the American Presidents Series seems to be as good as it gets.
William Jennings Bryan: In my quest to learn more about the time after Reconstruction but before World War I, I plan to read A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan, by Michael Kazin. Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for president.
Teddy Roosevelt: I generally avoid multi-volume biographies - time is too limited. So I won't read Edmund Morris's three volume set (The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Rex, and Colonel Roosevelt) even though it seems to the best available. I have seen rumors that Doris Kearns Goodwin's next book will be about Teddy Roosevelt, so I will probably go with that one. But if it doesn't come out in time, I can always fall back on the prolific H.W. Brands and his single volume biography titled T.R. The Last Romantic.
Eleanor Roosevelt: It seems that Blanche Wiesen Cook's series is the best available. It currently stands at two volumes and goes through the first years of FDR's presidency and could easily run two more volumes. I wish there was something shorter.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: I plan to read Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith by the end of the year. There is also apparently Eisenhower: Soldier and President by Stephen Ambrose, a one volume condensation or the full two volume work, though I had trouble finding that book.
John F. Kennedy: It seems that An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 by Robert Dallek is the best out there. However, the 1960s and 1970s presidents won't get on my list until 2014 at the earliest.
Lyndon Johnson: Robert Caro's trilogy is the most comprehensive and contemporary. Caro is a great writer and is able to find all the good stories. However, the sheer size of it means I won't get to it for some time - if ever. Instead, I'll probably read Doris Kearns Goodwin's single volume. There is also Robert Dallek's two volume set though I can't imagine reading his two volume set when I could just bite the bullet and read Caro's three volume.
Richard Nixon: I recently learned about Nixonland: America's Second Civil War and the Divisive Legacy of Richard Nixon 1965-1972 by Rick Perlstein. I think that is the best book to learn about Nixon.
Ronald Reagan: Someday I will read President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime by Lou Cannon.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Iran and Containment
There seems to be general agreement - among the right and the center-left - that we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is too dangerous and has said things that might imply that they would attack Israel. Therefore, if Iran gets too close to having a weapon, we'll have to attack. This all suggests that the general policy is that anyone that threatens a neighbor cannot have nuclear weapons.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The W. Bush Library
With the opening of the George W. Bush presidential library at Southern Methodist University (why not Harvard or Yale - where he actually attended?), there is more rethinking of his legacy. Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait have different takes. And I will add my own.
To me, there are three questions to think about as we reflect on George W. Bush: One, was he smart (this is perhaps the least interesting). Two, was he a good president? And three should our opinion of him be changing with time?
Klein and Chait come to very different conclusions about whether George W. Bush was smart. I tend to side with Chait on this one - President Bush is not very smart. He certainly isn't smarter than Ezra Klein and I don't think he is smarter than me. I will believe that he is smarter than he comes across in public, but that is a low bar.
Having said that, I don't think he was so dumb that he was incompetent. The decisions he made were proposed to him or supported by people that are very smart. Which is why I think this question is ultimately not that interesting. His intelligence level isn't what caused bad policy. As Ezra Klein says, being smart doesn't mean you are wise. What is clear from the policies is that even the people in Bush's administration that I would consider smart were not wise.
The second question is whether Bush was a good president. The answer is still no. He invaded Iraq believing there were weapons of mass destruction, when if he'd given Hans Blix more time (months) he would have found there were no weapons. And by invading Iraq, he took his focus off of Afghanistan, which we are still trying to get out of. On top of that, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered democracies by Freedom House (see this great Wonkblog post on Bush Admin).
Even before the financial crash, which he helped along with increased financial deregulation, growth during his presidency was mediocre. And he grew the deficit by enacting tax cuts and spending increases (the wars but also Medicare Part D) without paying for them. No Child Left Behind increased federal spending on education (though it remains underfunded) and changed the dialogue on education policy, but at best it is imperfect.
So if he was a bad president, do we need to reconsider him now that we have over four years of distance? I unfortunately think the answer is yes. At the time, I couldn't imagine a worse president. Then the country met the Republican Party of 2010 and 2012. This party is much more conservative than President Bush, and some are far less intelligent (see Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are probably on par with Bush's dogmatism and lack of curiosity).
As I have said before, Compassionate Conservatism (the disingenuous title though it was) has given way to 47% and pledges to cut Medicaid and other safety net programs. And while I disagree with Bush increasing the deficit during good times, the GOP's obsession with balanced budgets even in a recession is crazy and dangerous. And while Bush was willing to support the bail out and fiscal stimulus, current Republicans don't even support monetary stimulus.
John Stewart said that George H.W. Bush looks better in retrospect because he is being compared to his son George W. Bush. He then jokes maybe George W. will look better if one of his children become president and invades the moon. But we don't have to wait that long. We've seen an even worse GOP; it is among us. So yes, we should reconsider George W. Bush and realize that as bad as he was, it can still be worse.
To me, there are three questions to think about as we reflect on George W. Bush: One, was he smart (this is perhaps the least interesting). Two, was he a good president? And three should our opinion of him be changing with time?
Klein and Chait come to very different conclusions about whether George W. Bush was smart. I tend to side with Chait on this one - President Bush is not very smart. He certainly isn't smarter than Ezra Klein and I don't think he is smarter than me. I will believe that he is smarter than he comes across in public, but that is a low bar.
Having said that, I don't think he was so dumb that he was incompetent. The decisions he made were proposed to him or supported by people that are very smart. Which is why I think this question is ultimately not that interesting. His intelligence level isn't what caused bad policy. As Ezra Klein says, being smart doesn't mean you are wise. What is clear from the policies is that even the people in Bush's administration that I would consider smart were not wise.
The second question is whether Bush was a good president. The answer is still no. He invaded Iraq believing there were weapons of mass destruction, when if he'd given Hans Blix more time (months) he would have found there were no weapons. And by invading Iraq, he took his focus off of Afghanistan, which we are still trying to get out of. On top of that, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are considered democracies by Freedom House (see this great Wonkblog post on Bush Admin).
Even before the financial crash, which he helped along with increased financial deregulation, growth during his presidency was mediocre. And he grew the deficit by enacting tax cuts and spending increases (the wars but also Medicare Part D) without paying for them. No Child Left Behind increased federal spending on education (though it remains underfunded) and changed the dialogue on education policy, but at best it is imperfect.
So if he was a bad president, do we need to reconsider him now that we have over four years of distance? I unfortunately think the answer is yes. At the time, I couldn't imagine a worse president. Then the country met the Republican Party of 2010 and 2012. This party is much more conservative than President Bush, and some are far less intelligent (see Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are probably on par with Bush's dogmatism and lack of curiosity).
As I have said before, Compassionate Conservatism (the disingenuous title though it was) has given way to 47% and pledges to cut Medicaid and other safety net programs. And while I disagree with Bush increasing the deficit during good times, the GOP's obsession with balanced budgets even in a recession is crazy and dangerous. And while Bush was willing to support the bail out and fiscal stimulus, current Republicans don't even support monetary stimulus.
John Stewart said that George H.W. Bush looks better in retrospect because he is being compared to his son George W. Bush. He then jokes maybe George W. will look better if one of his children become president and invades the moon. But we don't have to wait that long. We've seen an even worse GOP; it is among us. So yes, we should reconsider George W. Bush and realize that as bad as he was, it can still be worse.
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Bitcoin: My Simple Thoughts
Bitcoin is back in the news, and with each time in the news, it gets more notoriety. For the most part, this post is going to assume you know a little about it. If you want more info, you can start with this post at Wonkblog. But more or less, Bitcoin is a digital and anonymous currency with a predictable supply. In this post, I am going to analyze its short term situation and long term prospects, because I think they are very different issues.
Short Term. I am pretty convinced, along with almost everyone else, that Bitcoin is suffering from a bubble right now. It's value has been skyrocketing. This would be great if Bitcoin were an investment vehicle. But it is intended to be a currency. As long as its value increases like this, it can't function as a currency because most people are hoarding it knowing that its value is increasing faster than the cost of goods.
If it isn't a bubble and the value keeps rising, it won't be much use as a currency. If the bubble pops, that doesn't doom the currency though. If there is still value in using it as a currency, it's value may not completely go to zero with the bursting of the bubble. In other words, the bubble might pop, the investors will flee, and those that want the currency as a currency will remain. This is probably what the Bitcoin supporters really want.
Long Term. So let's say that happens - the bubble bursts and the value of the Bitcoin comes back to something more reasonable. The question then is whether it is a useful currency. The answer depends on what it would be used for.
Bitcoin has a number of unique features: the supply is predictable; it is cost-free (or friction-less); it is anonymous. Let's look at each one.
First, let's look at its cost free nature. I do think this is important, to some degree and might help it or a successor catch on. Most other ways of using money online costs money. There are banking fees and credit card fees and other transaction fees. There are no fees with Bitcoin. I think a lot of users like this.
Second - Bitcoin is anonymous. This appeals to the crypto-anarchists of the interweb, as well as anyone else looking to break the law for a price. I don't doubt that this is attractive. It is a way to buy drugs, for example. But it is the anarchism aspect that I don't understand. There are rules for society in the real world, and so there should be on the internet. So here, my problem is the philosophy, though I understand that my disagreements won't stop this from being an attractive part of the currency.
Last is the predictable supply. This aspect goes along with the gold-bug leanings (ie people that want the dollar and other currencies on the gold standard) of some on the internet. Generally, I agree with all of modern economics that the gold standard is bad policy for any country's currency. To have the most stable economy, a nation needs a national bank to regulate and change the money supply. And just look at our history - the economy was far more stable and with fewer and less severe recessions since coming off the gold standard. Even Milton Friedman agreed; in fact his thesis was that the Great Depression should be blamed on poor management of the money supply and not a lack of stimulus spending.
Having said that, if Bitcoin is not a national currency, I don't know what harm having a predictable supply will cause - at least to the economy generally. There might be more ups and downs with the value of the currency. There might be times when it is not an effective currency because of hoarding. But as long as that only affects those who choose to use it and not any national economy - ie as long as it isn't widely used enough to crash an economy - I don't really care.
That also means though that the success or failure of Bitcoin doesn't really say much about the success of currencies with limited supplies that are not controlled by a national bank. Or rather, I can see Bitcoin succeeding without it being a positive lesson for the gold standard. But I can also see it failing because of its limited supply. It can also fail for other reasons. If it fails, we'll just have to analyze why.
There is one final issue, which is related to the supply issue, and that is trust. Some people don't trust national banks or private banks. Instead, they trust this software, which is open source. I am not one of those people. I trust our national bank and I trust our private banks (mostly). We have deposit insurance, and I know that our national bank's mission is to ensure a stable economy. I also don't trust the software, mostly because like most people I don't fully understand it. But there are some who are the opposite, who understand the software but don't trust (and maybe don't understand) our banks. In which case, Bitcoin is great for them. But I think they are wrong. So long as both options are available, everyone is happy.
Short Term. I am pretty convinced, along with almost everyone else, that Bitcoin is suffering from a bubble right now. It's value has been skyrocketing. This would be great if Bitcoin were an investment vehicle. But it is intended to be a currency. As long as its value increases like this, it can't function as a currency because most people are hoarding it knowing that its value is increasing faster than the cost of goods.
If it isn't a bubble and the value keeps rising, it won't be much use as a currency. If the bubble pops, that doesn't doom the currency though. If there is still value in using it as a currency, it's value may not completely go to zero with the bursting of the bubble. In other words, the bubble might pop, the investors will flee, and those that want the currency as a currency will remain. This is probably what the Bitcoin supporters really want.
Long Term. So let's say that happens - the bubble bursts and the value of the Bitcoin comes back to something more reasonable. The question then is whether it is a useful currency. The answer depends on what it would be used for.
Bitcoin has a number of unique features: the supply is predictable; it is cost-free (or friction-less); it is anonymous. Let's look at each one.
First, let's look at its cost free nature. I do think this is important, to some degree and might help it or a successor catch on. Most other ways of using money online costs money. There are banking fees and credit card fees and other transaction fees. There are no fees with Bitcoin. I think a lot of users like this.
Second - Bitcoin is anonymous. This appeals to the crypto-anarchists of the interweb, as well as anyone else looking to break the law for a price. I don't doubt that this is attractive. It is a way to buy drugs, for example. But it is the anarchism aspect that I don't understand. There are rules for society in the real world, and so there should be on the internet. So here, my problem is the philosophy, though I understand that my disagreements won't stop this from being an attractive part of the currency.
Last is the predictable supply. This aspect goes along with the gold-bug leanings (ie people that want the dollar and other currencies on the gold standard) of some on the internet. Generally, I agree with all of modern economics that the gold standard is bad policy for any country's currency. To have the most stable economy, a nation needs a national bank to regulate and change the money supply. And just look at our history - the economy was far more stable and with fewer and less severe recessions since coming off the gold standard. Even Milton Friedman agreed; in fact his thesis was that the Great Depression should be blamed on poor management of the money supply and not a lack of stimulus spending.
Having said that, if Bitcoin is not a national currency, I don't know what harm having a predictable supply will cause - at least to the economy generally. There might be more ups and downs with the value of the currency. There might be times when it is not an effective currency because of hoarding. But as long as that only affects those who choose to use it and not any national economy - ie as long as it isn't widely used enough to crash an economy - I don't really care.
That also means though that the success or failure of Bitcoin doesn't really say much about the success of currencies with limited supplies that are not controlled by a national bank. Or rather, I can see Bitcoin succeeding without it being a positive lesson for the gold standard. But I can also see it failing because of its limited supply. It can also fail for other reasons. If it fails, we'll just have to analyze why.
There is one final issue, which is related to the supply issue, and that is trust. Some people don't trust national banks or private banks. Instead, they trust this software, which is open source. I am not one of those people. I trust our national bank and I trust our private banks (mostly). We have deposit insurance, and I know that our national bank's mission is to ensure a stable economy. I also don't trust the software, mostly because like most people I don't fully understand it. But there are some who are the opposite, who understand the software but don't trust (and maybe don't understand) our banks. In which case, Bitcoin is great for them. But I think they are wrong. So long as both options are available, everyone is happy.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Support All Families
Ross Douthat tweeted this week that liberals are unlikely to support two-parent families once they (we) win the battle on marriage equality. My response was, why should we only support two-parent families - why not support all families?
For a while, I passively agreed with that sentiment. Children are more successful in two-parent settings, so we should naturally support that setting. I didn't go as far as others, who thought we should intervene a little more to encourage a woman to marry the father of her child. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with supporting all marriage.
But it was that tweet that got me thinking. Yes, I know the literature shows that children in two-parent families have better outcomes. But doesn't that actually mean that we should do a better job of supporting single-parent families?
Those that hold the biblical and judgmental view that single-parent families are immoral will of course want policy to push people into two-parent situations. And they does this without understanding or respecting that the otherwise single parent might have good reasons to stay away from a marriage.
But if you take away the judgment, if you accept that many different family arrangements are acceptable, then the obvious answer is to support single-family parents more. Anyone who is a parent in a dual parent household knows how hard it is to be a parent even in the two-parent situation. And those of us that are in two-parent situations can imagine - to some degree - how hard it would be if we were doing this alone. And knowing how hard it is, we should then know that we need to help those that are single-parents.
I think my main disagreement with Douthat and others that share his view is on whether there is one right way to live a life. Or that there is an easy way to lead the right life. Their view is that two-parent families are the right way, and it isn't hard to find a partner and stay together. I think that life is complicated, people make decisions, often the right decisions, and so doing end up in different situations.
And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with two same-sex individuals being in love and wanting to spend their lives together - with children or without. There is nothing wrong with a single-parent wanting to raise a family. And there is nothing wrong with a two-parent household not wanting to get married but still staying together. There are lots of different and perfectly acceptable ways to live a life.
So I don't think we need to "support marriage". I think we need to support people so that everyone can have a rich and fulfilling life. And so that all children can have a minimum level of support and opportunities to be successful.
For a while, I passively agreed with that sentiment. Children are more successful in two-parent settings, so we should naturally support that setting. I didn't go as far as others, who thought we should intervene a little more to encourage a woman to marry the father of her child. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with supporting all marriage.
But it was that tweet that got me thinking. Yes, I know the literature shows that children in two-parent families have better outcomes. But doesn't that actually mean that we should do a better job of supporting single-parent families?
Those that hold the biblical and judgmental view that single-parent families are immoral will of course want policy to push people into two-parent situations. And they does this without understanding or respecting that the otherwise single parent might have good reasons to stay away from a marriage.
But if you take away the judgment, if you accept that many different family arrangements are acceptable, then the obvious answer is to support single-family parents more. Anyone who is a parent in a dual parent household knows how hard it is to be a parent even in the two-parent situation. And those of us that are in two-parent situations can imagine - to some degree - how hard it would be if we were doing this alone. And knowing how hard it is, we should then know that we need to help those that are single-parents.
I think my main disagreement with Douthat and others that share his view is on whether there is one right way to live a life. Or that there is an easy way to lead the right life. Their view is that two-parent families are the right way, and it isn't hard to find a partner and stay together. I think that life is complicated, people make decisions, often the right decisions, and so doing end up in different situations.
And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with two same-sex individuals being in love and wanting to spend their lives together - with children or without. There is nothing wrong with a single-parent wanting to raise a family. And there is nothing wrong with a two-parent household not wanting to get married but still staying together. There are lots of different and perfectly acceptable ways to live a life.
So I don't think we need to "support marriage". I think we need to support people so that everyone can have a rich and fulfilling life. And so that all children can have a minimum level of support and opportunities to be successful.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
On Partisanship and Drones
This week, Rand Paul staged a talking filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan to be the head of the CIA. There are two things I want to say about this episode.
First, I went from being impressed with Rand Paul to being disappointed with him. I am glad he used the filibuster to bring attention to an important issue. I was let down however when he ended it and declared victory after the Obama administration said they cannot kill Americans on American soil with a drone.
Rand Paul went after the most extreme aspect of what seems to be a clearly illegal policy. The Obama administration claims it can kill anyone, including American citizens, with a drone, away from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no due process outside of Obama making the decision, and using criteria that strain at least or more likely violate the authorizing legislation.
That the Obama administration, through AG Eric Holder (of whom I have no respect for anymore), at first claimed that authority on American soil and then backed away from that, does not address the fact they still claim the power everywhere else in the world. This is something libertarians and progressives who care about civil liberties should be appalled by. So while Paul's fillibuster brought some attention, it did not go far enough and is not much of a victory.
Second, the filibuster showed the power of partisanship, whereby people make decisions based not on policy but what team they are on. In this case, the one exception here in my mind is Rand Paul. I believe he would have done the same thing had this been a Republican president. I hope I am not wrong.
But throughout the filibuster, there were 13 Republicans and only 1 Democrat supporting Paul's filibuster on an issue of civil liberties. Had this been a Republican president, there would have been 40 Democrats and 1 Republican. In other words, I think both parties were following partisanship. I think many of the Republicans that joined Paul would not have confronted a Republican president (unless there are in fact 12 libertarian senators). And I know all those silent Democrats would not have been silent.
The New York Review of Books had an article about the War of 1812 declaring that it was not fought over British interning American sailors but was instead America's first partisan war, whereby supporters of Madison supported the war only because they were in Madison's party. (Just so you know this isn't the only alternative interpretation, James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, argues the war was really over subjugating the native American population.)
Let me be clear, I am not writing this to oppose political parties. The parties are supposed to be organizations of like-minded individuals with similar goals for government and society. The problem arises when people support the party even when it is promoting policies that contradict the ideas of the party. When this happens, people are supporting policies that are not in line with their ideals (which is always bad) for the sole purpose of protecting the party or its leaders.
First, I went from being impressed with Rand Paul to being disappointed with him. I am glad he used the filibuster to bring attention to an important issue. I was let down however when he ended it and declared victory after the Obama administration said they cannot kill Americans on American soil with a drone.
Rand Paul went after the most extreme aspect of what seems to be a clearly illegal policy. The Obama administration claims it can kill anyone, including American citizens, with a drone, away from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with no due process outside of Obama making the decision, and using criteria that strain at least or more likely violate the authorizing legislation.
That the Obama administration, through AG Eric Holder (of whom I have no respect for anymore), at first claimed that authority on American soil and then backed away from that, does not address the fact they still claim the power everywhere else in the world. This is something libertarians and progressives who care about civil liberties should be appalled by. So while Paul's fillibuster brought some attention, it did not go far enough and is not much of a victory.
Second, the filibuster showed the power of partisanship, whereby people make decisions based not on policy but what team they are on. In this case, the one exception here in my mind is Rand Paul. I believe he would have done the same thing had this been a Republican president. I hope I am not wrong.
But throughout the filibuster, there were 13 Republicans and only 1 Democrat supporting Paul's filibuster on an issue of civil liberties. Had this been a Republican president, there would have been 40 Democrats and 1 Republican. In other words, I think both parties were following partisanship. I think many of the Republicans that joined Paul would not have confronted a Republican president (unless there are in fact 12 libertarian senators). And I know all those silent Democrats would not have been silent.
The New York Review of Books had an article about the War of 1812 declaring that it was not fought over British interning American sailors but was instead America's first partisan war, whereby supporters of Madison supported the war only because they were in Madison's party. (Just so you know this isn't the only alternative interpretation, James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, argues the war was really over subjugating the native American population.)
Let me be clear, I am not writing this to oppose political parties. The parties are supposed to be organizations of like-minded individuals with similar goals for government and society. The problem arises when people support the party even when it is promoting policies that contradict the ideas of the party. When this happens, people are supporting policies that are not in line with their ideals (which is always bad) for the sole purpose of protecting the party or its leaders.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
On Drones
I know I haven’t posted in a while, but I feel the overwhelming need to write about drones. This latest article in the Huffington Post, where Holder apparently says the US has the authority to kill an American citizen in the US with a drone, has put me over the top. To summarize, Obama’s policies on drones represent some of the same abuses and lack of values as the Bush administration. And in some ways, the policies and actions are actually worse.
First, let me explain how they are similar. The worst policies of the Bush administration used absurd logic in legal memos to approve things that obviously contradict the spirit and intent of the laws. The torture memo is the prime example. To define, in absurd legal logic, that all treatment short of organ failure is not torture defies common sense and legal reasoning. The way the law works, the legal argument was plausible enough for Bush’s lawyers to write it and endorse it. But everyone could see how absurd it was.
Barack Obama is doing the same thing with drones. To say that he has the authority to kill an American citizen, away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, when the people are not part of Al Qaeda and are not planning immediate attacks, contradicts common sense and the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Obama says that what he is doing - without any involvement of the judicial or legislative branches - is due process. Someone on Twitter interpreted the statement thusly: Due process is the process that we do.
Further, President Obama says he has this authority when individuals are planning imminent attacks on the US, but imminent attack is re-defined to mean not at all imminent and in fact not necessarily planning an actual specific attack.
You can argue that individuals that are at war with the US can be killed by the US without due process. However, the president is using this authority to kill individuals that are not on a battlefield, and in fact they are claiming this power exists on American soil, where I don’t think a war is happening.
What Obama is doing is using the same absurd legal logic to give himself the authority to do something that violates laws and our own values. Due process is a fundemental value of our constitutional system and the drone policies trample that.
But what makes Obama’s policy worse is that it exists for him and no one else. President Bush and especially Vice President Cheney believed, wrongly in my opinion, that the executive branch was excessively weakened following the Nixon presidency; they believed in a strong “unitary” executive. So the powers they were fighting for were not for them only, but for their successors as well.
President Obama on the other hand enjoys having a free hand executing individuals without due process, including American civilians away from battlefields. But he wants it to exist for him only. In the run-up to the election, in the fear that Romney might win, the administration prepared to release rules governing this supposed power to kill individuals. Once the election was over, that rush has slowed down to a crawl. So in his mind, it is right that he has this power, because he will use it responsibly. But we cannot trust Romeny to use it this well.
But this mentality, even more so, violates American values. We are a nation of laws, not of individuals. The laws that enable or restrict government need to apply to everyone. If it is a good idea for Obama to have the power, then it must be a good idea for Romney to as well.
Conversely, if it is not a good idea for Romney, than it isn’t a good idea for Obama to have the power. By walking away from the idea of a country of laws, not people, we walk away from a system of objective policies and restraining everyone even though some might not abuse a power where others would.
There is also a political problem with Obama's policies. As a Democrat implementing these policies, Obama is preventing any ability to reign in or stop these powers in the future. If this were a Republican claiming the ability to kill Americans on American soil, the left would be in a frothing rage. There are many on the left that are opposing this (and are frothing mad) - Glen Greenwald as well as the ACLU come to mind - but not as many as would be were it a Republican president claiming the same powers. And now, when a Republican becomes president and tries to use these same powers, the left as a whole, even with those that have opposed it, will lack any moral authority to oppose and stop it.
I am deeply disappointed in Presdient Obama. He says we can maintain our values while maintaining our security. We can, but his administration is not a model for that, no matter how many times he repeats that phrase. He had the ability to be that leader, to show that we could protect our values. But he chose to do the opposite - without unfortunately giving up the talking point.
First, let me explain how they are similar. The worst policies of the Bush administration used absurd logic in legal memos to approve things that obviously contradict the spirit and intent of the laws. The torture memo is the prime example. To define, in absurd legal logic, that all treatment short of organ failure is not torture defies common sense and legal reasoning. The way the law works, the legal argument was plausible enough for Bush’s lawyers to write it and endorse it. But everyone could see how absurd it was.
Barack Obama is doing the same thing with drones. To say that he has the authority to kill an American citizen, away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, when the people are not part of Al Qaeda and are not planning immediate attacks, contradicts common sense and the Constitution.
The 5th Amendment says the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Obama says that what he is doing - without any involvement of the judicial or legislative branches - is due process. Someone on Twitter interpreted the statement thusly: Due process is the process that we do.
Further, President Obama says he has this authority when individuals are planning imminent attacks on the US, but imminent attack is re-defined to mean not at all imminent and in fact not necessarily planning an actual specific attack.
You can argue that individuals that are at war with the US can be killed by the US without due process. However, the president is using this authority to kill individuals that are not on a battlefield, and in fact they are claiming this power exists on American soil, where I don’t think a war is happening.
What Obama is doing is using the same absurd legal logic to give himself the authority to do something that violates laws and our own values. Due process is a fundemental value of our constitutional system and the drone policies trample that.
But what makes Obama’s policy worse is that it exists for him and no one else. President Bush and especially Vice President Cheney believed, wrongly in my opinion, that the executive branch was excessively weakened following the Nixon presidency; they believed in a strong “unitary” executive. So the powers they were fighting for were not for them only, but for their successors as well.
President Obama on the other hand enjoys having a free hand executing individuals without due process, including American civilians away from battlefields. But he wants it to exist for him only. In the run-up to the election, in the fear that Romney might win, the administration prepared to release rules governing this supposed power to kill individuals. Once the election was over, that rush has slowed down to a crawl. So in his mind, it is right that he has this power, because he will use it responsibly. But we cannot trust Romeny to use it this well.
But this mentality, even more so, violates American values. We are a nation of laws, not of individuals. The laws that enable or restrict government need to apply to everyone. If it is a good idea for Obama to have the power, then it must be a good idea for Romney to as well.
Conversely, if it is not a good idea for Romney, than it isn’t a good idea for Obama to have the power. By walking away from the idea of a country of laws, not people, we walk away from a system of objective policies and restraining everyone even though some might not abuse a power where others would.
There is also a political problem with Obama's policies. As a Democrat implementing these policies, Obama is preventing any ability to reign in or stop these powers in the future. If this were a Republican claiming the ability to kill Americans on American soil, the left would be in a frothing rage. There are many on the left that are opposing this (and are frothing mad) - Glen Greenwald as well as the ACLU come to mind - but not as many as would be were it a Republican president claiming the same powers. And now, when a Republican becomes president and tries to use these same powers, the left as a whole, even with those that have opposed it, will lack any moral authority to oppose and stop it.
I am deeply disappointed in Presdient Obama. He says we can maintain our values while maintaining our security. We can, but his administration is not a model for that, no matter how many times he repeats that phrase. He had the ability to be that leader, to show that we could protect our values. But he chose to do the opposite - without unfortunately giving up the talking point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)