We had our third politics night on Tuesday (11/30/2010). We discussed Wikileaks. I will summarize my position. Others can add theirs in the comments if they so choose.
Let me start by saying two things about state secrets that do not directly relate to Wikileaks. First, I think people in government abuse state secrets privileges (see my post on Claim of Privilege). So I am not a zealot on protecting classified documents. And related to that, I think there can be really important instances when leaked documents tell the public what they need to know but the government has been hiding from them.
Now, as to Wikileaks, I don't think that this last release was necessary nor has it been helpful at all. As many commentators have already said, the release was gossip and nothing more. And that gossip hasn't told the public anything useful, but it has potentially hurt our ability to work with partners like Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Governments should be able to talk privately. Of course, in the end, their decisions, and the information that went into making those decisions should be made public. But we don't need to know all private conversations.
I don't remember the previous releases too well, except that in general they didn't say a whole lot that we didn't already know. I think there were certain events that we didn't know about, but overall, there didn't seem to be a message that the government was hiding that came out in the releases.
I believe that the reason the Wikileaks information hasn't been that helpful in general stems from Julian Assange's motives. If we are to believe him, his goal is to make everything government does public. If we are to believe others, he just wants to embarrass the US. Either way, these intentions have lead, and will continue to lead to, unedited information dumps that are mostly useless but sometimes harmful.
When someone's intention is to highlight wrongdoing or bad decision-making, then we are likely to get information that furthers those goals. But when one's motives come from an absurd notion about democracy, or just a hatred of the US, then we will get a lot of information that is not helpful for the public to know and in some cases is harmful.
Update:
One of the Politics Night faithful pointed me to a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood on Democracy Now. Also, so that Julian Assange can speak for himself, here is a link to some of the interviews with him recently.
Showing posts with label Politics Night. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics Night. Show all posts
Friday, December 03, 2010
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Politics Night: The Role of Government
For the second politics night, we discussed the appropriate role of government. We emphasized early on that this would be a normative not positive discussion.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Politics Night: Inception (Not the Movie) and Obama
I have realized for quite a while that, although I love the blog, it just isn't enough debate for me. I crave the old lunchroom while also knowing I could have it even better than that. So I finally found enough people that also want to talk politics and started Politics Night. The idea was to choose a topic, have dinner and maybe some drinks, and debate.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)