SocratesVotes.com

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—

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—

With less than a week to go, it’s been said that if you’re still not sure who to vote for, you’ve got commitment issues. Maybe so, but perhaps you’re like me in ’04, when frustration led me to literally cast a write-in ballot for “f— ‘em both”. Though I think the choices are of higher quality this time around, if you’re honest with yourself, you’ve probably figured out that neither represents your values on every issue. So here’s a quick breakdown that may help, complete with a rough weighting of each issue’s practical importance.

Abortion: advantage McCain—Obama seems to be the more thoughtful of the two when it comes to abortion (admits he’s unsure when life begins), but as I’ve written before, his peculiar stance on partial birth abortion discredits his moral judgment. That said, the federal PBA ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so there’s little risk Obama could do much damage. McCain’s strengthened his rhetoric since securing the nomination, but has traditionally been quite pro-choice. While this is an issue with incredible emotional import, which candidate wins may have little bearing on policy.

Foreign Policy: advantage McCain—McCain has the the experience, the expertise, and most importantly the clout. Though I respect Obama’s idealism, I’m afraid Biden’s probably right—if he wins, some nutball will test him soon after inauguration. This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t rise to the occasion, but I’m much more comfortable with McCain in charge. Foreign policy is one area in which presidents exercise wide discretion, and with Iran rattling their saber and Russia on the upswing, this is an incredibly important issue.

Social Justice: advantage Obama—If progressive income taxes and estate taxes and educational benefits for the poor are socialist, so be it. As much as the dreaded s-word is hurled at Obama, you’d think McCarthy was advising McCain’s campaign. Nobody thinks straight welfare or handouts are justified, but workfare and well-deserved assistance is. Sure, the minimalist state would maximize efficiency, but we have other values to balance beyond GDP. Namely, securing our fellow citizens’ basic human dignity. Either candidate will need congressional cooperation to get anything done, but with our economy headed south, tax policy is especially important.

Healthcare: advantage Obama—Simply put, access to basic healthcare is a moral requirement of any just nation. Why? Because citizens can’t exercise any of their other cherished rights if their physical ailments go untreated. This doesn’t mean we have to follow Canada’s model. In fact, we probably shouldn’t. But it does mean something substantive is in order. McCain cares a little about healthcare, so I give him some credit, but he’s not committed enough. Obama on the other hand explicitly acknowledges healthcare as a human right. An issue in need of long overdue attention, this fundamental right is of moderate importance.

Immigration: Tie—This is one issue that’s been seriously neglected—all the rage in the primaries, but all but absent in the head-to-head debates. Of course, more pressing issues like energy and the economy take precedence, but you’d think they’d say something about immigration. However, as far as I can tell, there’s little real difference between the candidates’ approaches, so this marginally important issue is a tie.

Guns: advantage McCain—Obama’s sin: he supports a federal ban on concealed weapons. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, he’s on record as saying “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” But with intelligent policy and strict licensing procedures, it makes more sense to empower our trustworthy citizens than deny them the ability to fight back, at least until non-lethal technologies offer something with comperable stopping power, range, rapid fire ability and ease of operation. McCain gets only a C+ rating from the NRA, and given how extreme they can be, that’s probably just about right. Impressively though, according to CNN, both candidates “voted for a 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency.” That’s a good sign for both, but the edge goes to McCain. The gun lobby will likely keep either candidate in check, so this issue is only moderately important.

Economy: advantage ?—Though I’m slated to study macroeconomics within the next year, I won’t pretend to know which candidate is better suited to guide us out of the recession. Closer to the bottom than the top of the economic spectrum, from a purely self-interested position I think Obama would be better, but maybe McCain’s low tax trickle down approach is more sound long term. But I don’t know—I’m a political philosopher—research elsewhere for economic advice. This is of course HUGELY important. Too bad I don’t know more about it!

A few general things to consider:

• Intelligence: advantage Obama (former president of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional law at Chicago University, obviously thoughtful in answering most questions)
• Fear Factor: advantage McCain (puttin’ the fear in bad men for decades)
• Potential: advantage Obama (younger, more vigorous)
• Stability: advantage McCain (sometimes more of the same is a good thing)

In the end, just who should you vote for? That, my friend, I leave to you. (No, “my friend” isn’t an implicit endorsement of McCain.) Though I’ve made up my own mind, it would run contrary to the mission of SocratesVotes to do your reasoning for you, though I’m more than happy to reason with you in the comments section. If you’re honest about their strengths and weaknesses, you have to admit it’s a fairly tough choice. So don’t feel bad if you’re still undecided—be proud.

—Matt Deaton—

How to Watch TV News. That’s the title of an old gem (1992) by Neil Postman and Steve Powers I just finished reading. In light of their wonderful analysis and advice, and since most of us get our political news from the tube, I thought it deserved an article.

Building on the thesis Postman developed in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, the authors argue that commercial television is inherently ill-equipped to deliver the context and depth necessary to adequately inform citizens of a democracy. The main lesson: if you’re relying solely on television for your news, you’re in trouble!

It’s a simple argument: news shows are funded by advertisers; advertisers want to reach as many viewers as possible; most viewers lack the attention span and patience to sit through the detailed technical explanations and historical context important issues require; so producers sensationalize the banal and trivialize the important. Local shows showcase fires, car crashes and weather, rather than explaining the complexities of proposed budgets or amendments. And while the national news may tackle a little more important issues—especially 24/7 news channels—even with all that time, they can’t afford to go into too much detail, lest Joe Sixpack flip over to a football game and ruin their Neilsen rating. 

That’s why most debate “analysis” focuses on wardrobe choice or verbal slips or whose eyes rolled at the wrong moment. You won’t find any of that here. Well, not that often anyway. (“The OTHER Ditsy Vice Candidate” was one exception I couldn’t resist.)

What’s a viewer to do? In the last chapter Postman and Powers offer 8 concrete steps:

1. Decide for yourself what’s important—don’t leave it to the pundits to define what constitutes the news of the day

2. Remember that news shows are still “shows”—first and foremost entertainment

3. Never underestimate the power of commercials—view commercials cautiously and objectively, read the fine print, keep the physical product and its brand image separate in your head, and resist the temptation to go along for the advertisement’s ride

4. Investigate the financial and political interests of those who run TV stations—if GE owns NBC, can we trust NBC to honestly investigate GE products? And if GE profits from a particular military operation, or a financial bailout…

5. Pay special attention to the language of newscasts—slanted language can easily frame an issue—be aware of euphemisms and dysphemisms  where neutral language would do

6. Cut your TV news consumption by 1/3—that’s gonna be tough for most of us, but the authors insist that too much TV news leads to a warped, overly pessimistic worldview (and they’re probably right)

7. Cut the opinions you feel obligated to have by 1/3—if you don’t know enough about global warming to make an educated judgment, and don’t have the time or inclination to learn, admitting as much is better than clinging to a hollow opinion based on sound bites from talking heads

8. Do whatever you can to get schools interested in teaching children how to watch a TV news show—many schools have already thrown out Channel One (I remember the fluffy reporting and extreme Mountain Dew ads quite well), but for those that haven’t, turn those 12-minute consumerist indoctrination sessions into full-blown media analyses 

Expanding a bit:

• On #3, as Leslie Savan so eloquently put it in The Sponsored Life, the real product television is selling—even television news—is the viewer. Advertisers capture and sensationalize our everyday experiences, then return them with a product attached. Those fancy sets don’t pay for themselves, and your cable bill certainly isn’t getting the job done.

• On #4, there’s always the vested interests to worry about, so let’s not forget Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent. (Here’s the book on Amazon, and here’s the classic documentary on google video.)  Producers are careful to not piss off their sponsors, which sometimes skews journalistic integrity—makes investigative journalism a little softer than we expect. Beyond specific conflicts of interest, the capitlaist class runs the whole darn thing (and now I’m sounding a little paranoid communist—Chomsky tends to do that to me), effectively blocking serious discussion of policies contrary to their narrow interests. But if Postman’s correct, little serious coverage is given to anything of importance at all!

• And implied throughout is the call to read some books, for goodness’ sake! 

Finally, remember that all of the above applies to print, radio and online news, so keep your guard up—even when visiting SocratesVotes.

Update Nov 7, 08: Dan Rather gets to the root of Postman’s complaints

Should we constitutionally ban gay marriage? Obama says no, McCain says no, Biden says no. But Palin says yes, revealed in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody published Monday. While CBN applauded, all conceivable secular arguments supporting the ban fail, so McCain might reconsider the wisdom of his running mate.

“I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”

Though religious prohibitions abound, mounting a successful secular argument against homosexuality is notoriously difficult. Some say it spreads disease, but so does unprotected heterosexual sex. Some say it doesn’t lead to reproduction, but neither does contraceptive aided heterosexual sex, sex between infertile heterosexual partners, or even kissing between heterosexuals. Some attack the “homosexual lifestyle,” but what’s really at issue is the supposed lifestyle itself—promiscuous sex with random partners, drug use, etc—not the sexual orientation of those involved. And some insist that being gay is a choice, not biological (though I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to frustrate their natural heterosexuality and seek out persecution), but this is a moot point if there are no other strikes against it.

So it’s completely consistent to personally denounce homosexual marriage—based on religion or whatever—but at the same time oppose a legal ban.

But here Palin doesn’t want to outlaw, or even denounce it as immoral. Instead she’s pushing the “sanctity of marriage” argument—that such a fundamental institution can’t afford to be compromised. Indeed, homosexuals usually don’t reproduce, and a state that doesn’t repopulate isn’t a state for very long.

The obvious reply is that heterosexuals have done a pretty shoddy job of taking marriage seriously themselves, so what we need are more committed partners, regardless of their orientation. Maybe pre-licensing interviews and mandatory relationship counseling would do the trick. Plus, gays aren’t going to reproduce regardless of whether they’re married, so population issues don’t apply. (Actually, lesbian couples might be more likely to visit the sperm bank if they were legally married…) So those are the best secular arguments against it, and they all fall short.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m not flippantly ignoring the religious arguments. Religious reasoning is certainly appropriate in our personal lives, and can even predispose our policy positions. Following the doctrine of divine command theory, whatever God says goes, so a personal aversion to homosexuality is completely acceptable, if that’s what your religion teaches.

But religious arguments can’t work in the public forum, even in a state founded on Christian values. America is a nation of many faiths, so if we truly respect one another as free equals, we must reach beyond our personal intuitions and offer arguments that anyone can accept—base our laws on reasons that anyone can affirm, not just believers.

Just as the Hindu’s demand that I support a ban on eating beef falls on deaf ears, so too would my demand that he support banning gay marriage (Hinduism doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality). If we truly respect one another as fellow citizens in any serious way, in both cases, well-reasoned secular arguments must be supplied and discussed. And in both cases, such arguments are lacking.

So it’s completely consistent to personally denounce homosexual marriage—based on religion or whatever—but at the same time oppose a legal ban. The secular arguments just don’t hold water, and they’re all that’s admissible in the public forum.

It’s unnatural, against God’s will, indicative of an immoral lifestyle—I imagine similar arguments were used against interracial marriage a few short decades ago. Someone probably quibbled over the historical definition of “marriage” and argued that it had exclusively applied to intraracial couples. Maybe someone proposed we grant such couples “civil union” status? But over time the taboo lifted and the practice became first legally, then popularly sanctioned. Some religious denominations resisted, and that’s fine, but the state followed where reason led. Many churches will no doubt refuse to sanctify gay marriage, regardless of legality, and I’m by no means challenging their prerogative. But I’m confident public reason will prevail in the legal realm, and our officials will resist the call for a constitutional ban. Most already have—Palin should join them.

—Matt Deaton—

Contra McCain, who famously said we might be there for 100 years, Obama has pledged to not build permanent bases in Iraq. Given their strategic importance and the billions of dollars already spent on infrastructure, this policy is either incredibly unwise or misleading. I’m all for handing over policing duties as soon as possible, and scaling back troop levels is fine. Just don’t abandon the hard-won country altogether.  

This approach would drastically reduce American casualties, and at the same time put us in good position to ride out the end of the Petroleum Age.

It’s a staple of Obama’s platform that he opposed the war from the beginning and is eager to leave ASAP. And straight from his Iraqi issues page, he and Biden “will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.”  

But rather than leaving, why not send the bulk of the troops home and leave a residual force in place—withdrawn to the relatively safe confines of existing bases? Troops would still face some marginal threat, but nothing compared to what street patrols face now. This approach would drastically reduce American casualties, and at the same time put us in good position to ride out the end of the Petroleum Age. 

With a solid foothold in Afghanistan and Iraq, America’s oil interests wouldn’t depend so heavily on the fiat of regional dictators. Though troops remain in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, we’ve already been kicked out of Saudi Arabia. Relations with these host nations are currently good, but the less we’re dependent on their graciousness, the more secure our interests, and the more easily we can criticize their human rights abuses.

The experts say I shouldn’t worry—that the Pentagon is hard-set on staying in Iraq for a long, long time, despite any plans potential commanders in chief may have.

Newsweek reported two years ago, “Despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout from Iraq, the vast Balad Air Base, a 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots located 43 miles north of Baghdad, is hard evidence that the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time-at least a decade or so, according to military strategists.”

Also in 2006, Salon reporter Tom Engelhardt  wrote of the construction of giant “super-bases” indicating America’s true intentions. “There are at least four such ‘super-bases’ in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with ‘withdrawal’ from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say — and they always deny that we seek ‘permanent’ bases in Iraq — facts on the ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream ‘permanency.’”

And just this June, citing unnamed senior Iraqi military sources, Gulfnews.com reported that “A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security.”

So perhaps I shouldn’t worry. Perhaps Obama’s just pandering to the lingering anti-war vote, knows full well what’s at stake, and has no real intention of pulling completely out. But wouldn’t that make him a misleading, promise-breaking, sleazy politician like all the rest? 

He could insist that he remains committed to his campaign promise of not building any new permanent bases in Iraq, but isn’t willing to give up existing bases. A weasely way out? Of course. But for once, I wouldn’t complain. 

—Matt Deaton—

The second presidential debate sharpened the differences between McCain and Obama, with foreign policy and healthcare at the fore of the divide. The senior senator proved himself better suited to handle the Russian, Chinese and Iranian challenge, while the junior senator clearly had a better handle on the political ethics of healthcare. 

I see McCain’s open distrust of Putin a virtue—previewing exactly the sort of hardball diplomacy the ruskies understand.

McCain went with responsibility, emphasizing his desire that everyone receive care, but insisting that the government should only go so far to help. His general approach as deregulator/free market champion would have been a selling point were this ’98, but it’s a definite liability in recession-skittish ’08. Only comitting himself to the weakest of the three options, McCain’s policy ideas seemed impractical and ineffective at best—disingenuous at worst. 

Obama on the other hand wasn’t shy about declaring healthcare a fundamental right. This is the more ethically defensible route, on simple grounds that health is a precondition of our other rights. If we’re to exercise our recognized civil and political rights, we must first meet some requisite degree of personal health. Someone stricken with a debilitating disease can hardly exercise their right to assemble or free speech without access to adequate healthcare. So if we think our most cherished rights should be taken seriously, we’re implicitly committed to supporting a right to healthcare as well. Obama’s not bashful about endorsing it, despite the gut reaction of many to a “socialist” policy. But years of unfulfilled free market promises and the recent socialist bailout of Wall Street have the rest of us ready to do a little socializing of our own, beginning with medicine. 

Which issue is more important? It depends on the seriousness of the external threat. To the extent that Russia, China, and Iran threaten the short and mid-range prosperity and peace of the US, McCain’s a more attractive candidate. But to the extent that these threats are exaggerated, securing each citizen’s right to healthcare takes precedence.

—Matt Deaton—