SocratesVotes.com

So you’ve been indoctrinated from birth to think democracy is all that and a bag of chips. But have you ever stopped to ask what’s so magical about 50% + 1? Today you will! Thus, the theme of our second installment in our ongoing amateur political philosopher series: What’s so special about democracy, anyway? 

In honor of our contributor to the north, Liam, a Canadian legislative building

[Note: Below I prime your brain a bit, but the root question is whether a law or decision or policy is ethical simply because a majority endorses it—what seems to be the core of the democratic ideal. If you say yes, then you have to explain a bunch of terribly counter-intuitive policies. If you say no, well, you're just un-American and you're not allowed to visit SocratesVotes anymore (kidding!). The trick is to come up with some brilliant, nuanced version of democracy that can accommodate the complaints, or explain why they're not a real worry. If you can't do all that by yourself, you're in luck—lots of smart people are here to help. So think aloud on the screen, and maybe we can redeem our precious democracy together!]

First, it’s common to dismiss democracy in its most simple form. We can all imagine a majority abusing a minority with brute force, we can imagine the same majority accomplishing the same abuse via legal means, and we can see that there’s little difference between the two. Nobody thinks direct democracy is defensible. The problem, as we’ll see, is that there may not be a meaningful difference between this and the more accepted forms.

So how about representative democracy? We elect our best and brightest, then they use their superior judgement to promote our interests. But if your representative is simply promoting your biases, how is that significantly different from direct democracy? Couldn’t the same mob achieve the same abuse via a representative? By itself, that doesn’t sound like a satisfying solution.

“But ah,” you say—“constitutional democracy is where it’s at. We put a barrier between the mob and the law with elected legislators, then bind them with a constitution—a meta-law that regulates the sorts of regular laws we’ll allow. And for good measure, we’ll erect some quasi-external authority to ensure the legislature doesn’t do anything unconstitutional.”

That’s better, but theoretically a constitution could deny freedom of speech, religion, assembly—you name it. Every horrible thing that was possible under direct democracy is theoretically possible under constitutional democracy—just build it into your constitution. And if you’re suspicious of arguments based in hypotheticals, how about a federal constitution that implicitly endorses slavery (by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representative purposes) or a state constitution that excludes a minority from enjoying certain civil liberties (prop 8, anyone?). Is the mere fact that a law is constitutionally consistent enough enough to make it right? 

Lots to think about, huh? As always, don’t be shy. Surely democracy can be redeemed. Make your jr. high civics teacher proud! I’m not sure if mine would smile or cry if she visited SocratesVotes… At least I’m trying, Mrs. Thomas!

—Matt Deaton—

For your viewing pleasure, an interview with Governor Palin, complete with some weirdo slaughtering a turkey in the background. Yeah.

Happy Thanksgiving!
—Matt—

Hooray! My loooooong response to Mindy, Lil and Matteson’s questions in the “Let’s Play Political Philosopher! (Part I)” thread marks our 100th comment! A hearty thanks to all my contributors—Michael, Lisa, Matteson, Mindy, Mel, Lil, Liam, Jeff, Cory, Court, and Greg—it’s been a pleasure reasoning through these issues with you, and I really have learned a lot. 100 comments in our first 2 months? I call that a resounding success! Thanks to you all!

I’m always looking to improve the site, so if anyone has suggestions, please post below or shoot me an email.

Thanks again,

—Matt—

Remember those touching commercials featuring Montel Williams, riding across America on a big orange bus, giving away free medicine to the needy? Well, that PR campaign designed to downplay the healthcare issue at election time has been replaced with a clever regrouping since the Democrats’ widespread victories. While the implicit message was, “Come on, you don’t need the government’s help—business will take care of you,” now it’s “OK, we know the thrashing’s coming—please take it easy!”

I haven’t seen every minute of every PPA commercial, but does anyone recall Montel claiming that we deserve affordable healthcare? In the new commercial, he highlights the millions forced to choose between food and medicine, and concludes: 

“…That’s why everyone should have affordable health insurance. Until then, America’s pharmaceutical research companies are committed to helping uninsured and struggling patients through the Partnership for Prescription Assistance. Because doing what’s best for patients, is best for everyone.”

I know, someone out there thinks I’m an unreasonable cynic. “PPA’s doing lots of good, Matt. And you want to bash it?”

Rather than putting patients’ interests first, I’m willing to bet that the big dogs backing PPA—The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America—want their interests put first. And that means keeping profits as high as possible. PPA isn’t evidence that PhRMA cares more about the sick than themselves—it’s evidence that mounting pressure to curtail prescription costs has forced them to invest in some serious propaganda. 

I know, someone out there thinks I’m an unreasonable cynic. “PPA’s doing lots of good, Matt. And you want to bash it?” 

I don’t deny that the organization does some good. According to their website, they’ve assisted over 5 million Americans. (Keep in mind though that the average discount to each of those 5 million could be insignificant—PhRMA doesn’t provide those numbers). But according to that same website, PPA just launched in April 2005. How long have those companies been in business? Now they care?

Late’s definitley better than never, but surely it’s not coincidence that they only got serious about drugs for the poor right about the time it looked like a serious healthcare advocate was a viable candidate for president (Hillary). And maybe they noticed Michael Moore’s “Sicko” coming down the track?

Whatever good they do, and whatever their intentions, I just thought it was telling that their story would change so quickly after the election. Kinda makes you wonder why they waited until now to say that everyone deserves affordable healthcare. Kinda makes all that cynic talk not sound so cynical after all.

One last piece of evidence. Check out the slew of PPA testomonials on youtube, uploaded by user “ppanow” on NOVEMBER-FREAKING-FIFTH.

—Matt Deaton—

What does ethics generally demand amongst strangers? What do citizens owe one another (if anything) simply by virtue of being fellow citizens? That’s the question of social justice—what we’ll attempt to figure out in the coming weeks. Rather than just telling you what the “experts” say, I’ll place the softball on the tee and see what happens. Time to work that noodle!

Think carefully, then answer this question: If you were making up rules for society to live by from scratch, but didn’t know who you were—your sex, intelligence, race, religion, political allegiances, sexual orientation, handicaps, talents, income, tastes, etc—what sorts of general rules would you choose to guide laws and institutions?

Set aside the impossibility of actually blocking knowledge of your sex, intelligence, race etc. for the moment. Embrace the experiment. And think hard about the implications of choosing rules to live by when you really don’t know who you are. What laws would you definitely NOT endorse? What laws would you definitely endorse? Why?

Here are some options to get you thinking. “The state should own all industry.” “Private citizens should own all industry.” “Taxes should only be collected for the purposes of police and military protection.” “Everyone should have the freedom to peaceuflly assemble.” “Islam should be the official religion.” “Everyone should have an equal opportunity to pursue their life plans.” “No one should make over $1 mil annually.” “No one should make less than $30k annually.” “Homosexuality should be prohibited.” “Weed should be legal.”

A famous political philosopher thinks he/she knows how this sort of person—blocked from all knowledge of their personal biases—would reason. (If you’re familiar with that philosopher and his/her argument, please abstain from answering for now.) I’ll reveal his/her answer in due time, as well as the implications (why we should even care what this ideal reasoner would think). For now, think through it yourself, and share your thoughts in progress.

—Matt Deaton—

Prompted by the fears of my gun-clinging buddies, I emailed my first letter to president-elect Obama yesterday, encouraging him to explain and/or revise his position on a federal concealed weapons ban. Reprinted below, take a look and share your thoughts—on firearms regulation in general, and on concealed weapons permits in particular. As I told Obama (or rather, as I told the computer program that registered and automatically responded to my email), I’m familiar with the academic arguments on guns, but I’m interested in thinking through the issue here as well. And remember that I’m always open to good arguments, so don’t assume the guy holding the Glock won’t take  your points seriously.

Teaching Firearms Safety

Mr. Obama,

     First, congratulations on your big win! I’m excited about America’s future, and though I thought you and Mr. McCain were on the right side of different issues, I voted for you because of your stance on economic justice, healthcare, your obvious intelligence, and for your demonstrated ability and willingness to reason through the issues. 

     On that note, I have a quick question on the rumors that you favor a federal ban on concealed carry laws. Is this true, and if so, why? 

     A political philosophy and applied ethics PhD student at the University of [omitted to disassociate employer from personal website], I’ve studied and written about the ethics of firearms quite a bit. In the name of public safety, guns most certainly need to be regulated, but with intelligent filtering processes, why not empower those citizens worthy of the state’s trust with an effective way to defend themselves and others? We do the same for police, and in fact, the statistics I’ve looked at (compiled by John Lott) indicate that state-licensed concealed firearms holders are even less likely to use their weapon in the commission of a crime than an off-duty cop. If you’re unsatisfied with some states’ licensing standards, then maybe mandating raised standards is a better option than an all-out ban. Thorough background checks and safety training programs are already mandated, but given how dangerous guns are, perhaps in-depth psychological exams and one-on-one police interviews are in order as well. 

     I’ve studied the applied ethics literature on firearms quite extensively, and would be happy to help your administration in any way possible. I look forward to an America under your leadership, and especially to the elevated pubic discourse your example will encourage.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Matt Deaton, MA

Graduate Teaching Associate

University of [omitted]

May the discussion on guns and concealed weapons permits begin!

—Matt Deaton—

If you’ve paid attention, you know I think McCain’s strongest suit is foreign policy. Well, since Obama has claimed to be interested in bipartisan bridge building, why not appoint McCain Secretary of Defense? 

Fellow blogger Lillie proposed the appointment in passing, and though I don’t expect it to happen, it’s a wonderful idea.

There’s been a little interest online, but not much. Some shallow attention on ireport, mostly negative responses on Yahoo! Answers, and here’s something on Winnie the Pooh?

It’s certainly a long shot. The two disagreed on an awful lot—Iraq withdrawal, how to best engage “enemies”, whether idealism or realism should prevail. But man, with Obama’s intelligence and McCain’s experience, Obama’s vision and McCain’s teeth, and the election rhetoric behind them—what a great team they’d make. What do you think?

—Matt Deaton—

A Marine friend once told me the story of a unit under the leadership of a black commander. He noticed that those at the top were black, those who were most easily promoted were black, and those who got all the breaks were black. Whites who seemingly did an excellent job were overlooked, ignored, disenfranchised. An idealist, but a black man himself, my friend confronted a high-ranking non-commissioned officer. “After so many years of being oppressed, how can you justify becoming the oppressor?” His response? “Now that we’ve got a little power, we’ve got to entrench it. We can’t afford to be idealistic.” The day after the most important election of my lifetime, my advice to Obama: resist the temptation to do the same—choose cabinet members based on the content of their character and their qualifications, not the color of their skin.

I only know the story second-hand, but I imagine that the whites in that Marine unit were incredibly frustrated and resentful. The message sent was that even if they themselves were colorblind, their corrupt leaders were not. I suspect this undermined any preexisting dedications they had to equality—emphasized the arbitrary racial divisions we’ve worked so hard to overcome. If Obama takes a similar route in building his administration, white America will hear a similar message, with similar results.

Though I think the warning needs to get out, I really don’t think the man’s that shallow. All indications are that he’s intelligent enough to realize the risks, and enlightened enough to not seriously consider it in the first place. I genuinely expect an ethnically diverse White House. And more diverse than usual is fine, so long as it’s not blatantly afrocentric.

In fact, Obama may even oversee a politically diverse administration. He’s emphasized in the past that he’d incorporate Republicans, according to ABC News, last December naming Senators Dick Luger, Chuck Hagel, and even the terminator himself—Arnold Schwarzenegger—as potential cabinet members.

But if the latent fear of many white voters comes to fruition, the repercussions will be felt for decades. Don’t give anyone an excuse to confirm the worry that blacks are eager to “take over”. Don’t give the Rush Limbaughs of the world reason to cry foul.

If the idealistic candidate of hope turns out to be a shallow racist, it will completely reverse the potential he holds to take us beyond the politics of identity. The side benefits of a black president could easily be negated by the side risks.

All that said, I’m confident he appreciates the stakes. I’m confident he won’t recruit an all black or nearly all black cabinet. I’m confident he’ll lead by example—judge persons by the content of their character, not the color of their skin—help America realize the great hope his leadership promises. Let us hope that I’m right.

—Matt Deaton—

The racist undercurrents are boiling over. Just as cases of white intimidation of blacks in the South last century were unconscionable, so too are reports of blacks intimidating whites in Philadelphia today. See the below video from Fox News.

As much should be obvious, but in case it’s not: just as whites who vote for whites simply because they’re white are irresponsible, silly, chldish, ignorant, etc, blacks who vote for blacks simply because they’re black are irresponsible, silly, childish, ignorant, etc. That’s something that hasn’t been emphasized nearly enough this election cycle.

The same applies to women. Many Hillary supporters weren’t shy about their desire to see a woman elected president—any woman—which should be deeply troubling to all of us. Some blacks have expressed the same. Trust me, the message this sort of attitude sends to white males is that they’d best hold onto their power—that they can’t afford to be enlightened if everybody else is voting along race and gender lines. And that’s obviously not a message we need to be sending.

(Justified?) paranoia may lead us to think that this was staged—an attempt to rally white backlash. Reality or fiction, I’m afraid it will unfortunately have that effect on some voters.

My hope is that if this report is true, it only represents an isolated incident. And beyond today, I hope that if Obama wins, it will signal the beginning of the end of identity politics. I’ve argued that it could hasten the end of affirmative action, force holdout racists to repent, and inspire a lost youth to achieve. Perhaps this sort of thing is just a necessary growing pain on the road to enlightened democracy.

—Matt Deaton—

Update: same incident, video from concerned citizen

UPDATE MAY 31, 2009: According to the Washington Times, a subsequent investigation brought against the accused intimidators has been dropped, a judge only mandating that one of the three not bring a weapon to future polls. Seems a VERY light punishment. Read more here.

Oh boy. For the record, SocratesVotes is nonpartisan. But I couldn’t pass up spreading just a bit more humor. From my buddy Mike, feel free to customize and send to your nonvoting friends. (I wonder if there’s an anti-McCain version out there somewhere…)

Ok, that’s more than enough silly stuff for one week. Back to serious articles…

Update: site came down Nov 5th, but it was a funny news parody, blaming <insert name> for not voting, and thus allowing McCain to win by one vote. 

—Matt—