SocratesVotes.com

Inspired by Joe Biden (and Matteson), I did a little armchair philosophy on this one. As silly as it may seem, under the right circumstances, paying taxes can be patriotic.

Paying is a sacrifice, not on par with military service, but definitely more substantial than flying a flag or honoring the anthem—both accepted forms of patriotism.

To get to the heart of patriotism, let’s examine two paradigm cases: serving in the military and flying Old Glory.

Is serving in the military always patriotic? It usually is, but consider the soldier who’s drafted, vocally opposses being drafted, puts up a fuss in boot camp, resents every day served, and never develops an internal sense of American pride. Though he’s sacrificing for his country, his resistance disqualifies his service as truly patriotic. However, give that same soldier a willing and proud attitude, and viola—he’s GI Joe.

Is flying the stars and bars always patriotic? It is most of the time, but imagine someone under the thumb of an oppressive homeowner’s association. He hangs his flag on the 4th of July, not because he cares the slightest bit about his country (he’s actually never been proud of his country…), but because he doesn’t want to pay the $100 fine for not hanging it. But his neighbor, subject to the same association (ooh, those evil homeowner’s associations), is upset that she can’t display her beloved flag every day of the year. Both fly their flag, but only the lady is patriotic. 

In both cases, the action itself—serving in the military or displaying a flag—isn’t enough to constitute patriotic behavior. A proper patriotic mindset was also required. So we might think that this attitude is all it takes—that you can make any action patriotic, if done for the right reasons. Not so.

Say your crazy uncle is diehard USA #1!—so crazy and so diehard that he constantly blinks the national anthem in morse code. He doesn’t tell anyone what he’s up to—everyone thinks he just has a twitchy eye (and that’s the least of his problems… he’s crazy!). But internally, he’s affirming his extreme love for the U. S. of A. 

I’m almost tempted to say, “Yeah, uncle Rico’s patriotic too. He’s just showing his patriotism in an unusual, private way.” But I think genuine patriotism also involves communicating your allegiance to others. Unconventional expressions intended to be patriotic don’t fully count because they don’t abide by norms others can recognize. So crazy uncle Rico may be a patriotic person, but his blinking is not patriotic behavior.

So for an act to be patriotic it must A) be done with patriotic intent and B) be a recognized, communicable expression of patriotism. Which brings us to our target—paying taxes.

Are taxes paid with patriotic intent? Sometimes. Depends on the person. Is paying taxes a recognized form of patriotism? Judging the ridicule Joe Biden faced for making that comment, I would say no. But should it be?

I think so. While much of our tax money is squandered, it’s at least supposed to go to promoting the common good. Paying is a sacrifice, not on par with military service, but definitely more substantial than flying a flag or honoring the anthem—both accepted forms of patriotism. Also, it’s clearly UNpatriotic to enjoy a nation’s benefits, but evade contributing to its success (by setting up an offshore bank account, for example).

Paying taxes currently doesn’t count as patriotic because it isn’t widely recognized as an expression of national pride. But since it involves personal sacrifice for the good of the nation, it should be. And if enough people read this and agree, Joe Biden’s remarks won’t seem so silly after all. Well, those particular remarks won’t seem so silly.

—Matt Deaton—

False respect and tit for tats dominated the first and only ’08 vice presidential debate. Palin shook the ditsy stigma, Biden solidified his experience advantage, and the candidates found common ground on a surprising issue—gay marriage.

Biden initially sounded dunderheaded, stumbling through responses and slow on his feet. When they shook hands, Palin said, “Nice to meet cha—can I call you Joe?” He said sure, but looked like the question (or her suit) caught him off guard. Thirty minutes in though, he was in full stride, confident and on point. His experience shone through in his comments, from energy to foreign policy, which left me wondering why he wasn’t lead on the Dem’s ticket.

Palin definitely exceeded expectations. After her horrendous Couric interview, I was on edge, ready to cringe. But she had obviously done her homework, and came across as much more intelligent and articulate. That said, her quirkiness turned spiteful—even downright mean. And her plain folks “I don’t know how you Washington insiders see it, but I…” wore my patience thin. But on whole, I’m not as concerned that she might be a heartbeat away. But I’m not that comforted either.

Neither dared challenge the traditional man-woman definition, but both claimed to support extensive legal rights for gay couples.

One unexpected issue the candidates seemed to agree on was gay marriage. Neither dared challenge the traditional man-woman definition, but both claimed to support extensive legal rights for gay couples. Biden claimed to support full civil equality with heterosexual couples (neglecting that full civil equality should probably include full fledged marriage rights too). Palin said that she was fine with hospital visitation rights and rights to “enter into contracts” (not a very romantic way to put it), and left it at that. If pressed further, I’m sure they’d agree to disagree on some aspect of gay marriage, but the moderator was happy to uncover common ground, and hastily moved on.

Given their respective experience on the national scene, it’s no surprise Biden inspired more confidence. He’s been a player for decades, while Palin just stepped up last month. Keep in mind though, while public speaking and debating ability are important factors for a national leader, they don’t compensate for poor policy. Most policy claims were shrouded in competing contradictory statistics, which left the viewer unable to judge if either candidate presented a credible argument. What’s the upshot? In the end, neither was overly impressive, and neither won or lost my vote.

—Matt Deaton—

Palin’s been catching all sorts of flack for her Katie Couric interview, and rightly so. 90% fluff and 10% content, little organization and chocked full of misplaced hollow talking points—I like to think she was just nervous. This Thursday’s debate with Joe Biden will be the real test. Sure to be entertaining, if nothing else.

It’s sure to be entertaining because Biden’s not the brightest bulb either. Case in point: his public invitation to paraplegic Chuck Graham to stand up.

Yeah… paraplegic… stand up. Nice recovery though. Not sure I could have handled it so gracefully.

—Matt Deaton—

A couple days ago I wrote a piece denouncing Obama’s position on partial-birth abortion, and called for him to repeal it. Central to that argument was the supposition that he really didn’t have an argument supporting his view, and the only one I could imagine was bad.

In follow up comments, however, Matteson over at matteson-on-stilts.blogspot.com did a little research, and challenged me to do the same. It turns out that Obama has defended his position—and he could actually have a plausible argument backing it. In the end though, his position is too vague, and thus remains morally suspect.

[From Rick Warren's forum: "I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health" — 2:13 in vid.]

Obama has said on more than one occasion that he’s undecided as to when life begins, most recently deferring that call to someone else—famously saying at Rick Warren’s faith forum, “answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” Though I can respect his humility somewhat, a man running for president should do all he can to put in some serious thought and make that call, or at least say something a little more determinate than that.

But that’s not the issue here. Here we’re interested in exactly when he thinks partial-birth abortion is justified, and most importantly, why. Here’s Obama’s logic. He apparently opposes the federal ban because it only makes an exception when the mother’s life is threatened. He thinks a broader protection is in order—an exception for when a mother’s health is in danger.

The immediate reply, say his critics, is that allowing the procedure when the mother’s health is in danger would more easily facilitate abuse. “Health” is such a vague concept that it could conceivably be used to justify partial-birth abortions when the mother’s mental well being was at stake—even slightly—say if she insisted she’d be depressed if the child were born alive. When the kid’s fully viable and ready to come out, mild depression simply isn’t reason enough to end his or her life. Other reasons may be strong enough, but that’s certainly not one of them. And trumped up worries about the mother’s “health” could be stretched to encompass it.

But Obama’s reasoning might work if we’re charitable as to exactly what he has in mind. If we assume he’s only after a stipulation that the procedure be allowed when the mother’s “health” is in danger, then perhaps he’s intentionally weakening the statute and implicitly endorsing PBA for frivolous reasons. He’s a smart guy and could certainly foresee the implications of such a lax standard, so if that’s all he wants, we not only have reason to question his moral judgment, but his sincerity.

“Health” is such a vague concept that it could conceivably be used to justify partial-birth abortions when the mother’s mental well being was at stake—even slightly—say if she insisted she’d be depressed if the child were born alive.

But on the other hand, if he has a higher standard in mind—if perhaps he wants to allow it only in cases where the mother faced, say, serious debilitating physical harm (paralysis, loss of a vital organ, brain damage, or something comparably severe), then his argument is more plausible and his position more respectable. These considerations, in some cases, may be reason enough to justify the procedure, if it were in fact necessary to avoid the harm.

To be clear, I don’t presume to know whether PBA is actually ever necessary to prevent such harm. But Congress concluded pretty decisively that it wasn’t. From section 2. (5) of the ban: “substantial evidence… demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.” And they’re pretty confident—that judgment is reiterated repeatedly in the surrounding clauses. But at any rate, that’s a judgment that really is above my pay grade. I’m just laying out the hypothetical cases where it might be morally permissible, and implicitly arguing that a “serious debilitating physical harm” provision might be justifiable.

Which standard does Obama have in mind? I’m not sure. From what I could find, he only explicitly emphasizes the vague and less defensible “health” provision, and doesn’t spell out what sorts of cases this would or should encompass. The burden is definitely on him to make his position clearer.

So as it stands, Obama’s position could be defensible (at least somewhat), if articulated in the right way for the right reasons. Given his obvious intelligence and seemingly otherwise sound moral judgment, I’d like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But in light of his articulateness in every other matter, I won’t. He needs to publicly clarify his position, soon, and until he does (for the better), we should continue to denounce his stance on partial-birth abortion. It’s just too abhorrent a procedure to tolerate imprecision.

—Matt Deaton—

Here’s an exercise good Bio Ethics teachers assign their students:

Rank the following examples on a scale of 1-10 as less or more morally justified (0 being clearly unethical, 10 being clearly ethical). Or, if you think abortion can’t be justified under any circumstance, rank the cases on the scale of 1-10 as more or less morally repugnant (0 being incredibly abhorrent, 10 being wrong, but not as wrong, relative to the other examples).

1) A pregnant woman will die if she doesn’t abort her 10-week-old fetus. The child suffers from some terrible condition, and will very likely die a painful death soon after birth, if he or she survives delivery.

2) A pregnant woman is considering aborting her 4-month-old fetus because she’s afraid that her abusive husband will leave her if she doesn’t. “You’re getting too fat,” he tells her. “Get rid of that thing or I’m leaving you.”

3) A pregnant woman thought she wanted a baby, but now that she’s 8 and 1/2 months pregnant, isn’t so sure. She’s questioning motherhood because she just won a Caribbean cruise on The Price is Right, and the boat leaves next week. “This baby’s awful inconvenient,” she thinks. “I can just abort this one, go on the cruise, and then get pregnant again when I get back.”

Your answers? The point is to get students to entertain the possibility that abortion might be OK in some circumstances (if they’re dogmatically pro-life) or that it might not be OK in some circumstances (if they’re dogmatically pro-choice). From my experience, out of 25 or so students, there may be a couple at both extremes who refuse to budge, but most concede that these cases represent varying degrees of moral acceptableness, even if in the end we say there’s something morally suspect about every last one.

Obama, for whatever reason, has decided to endorse what many consider the absolute worst of the worst—partial-birth abortions. I’ll spare you the horrific details—google at your own peril. And it’s somewhat of a mystery, to me anyway, why he insists on defending it.

In all imaginible cases it’s clearly unethical (a view shared by medical ethicists and the vast majority of Americans), it’s illegal, and the S.C. confirmed the ban’s constitutionality. That’s three strikes against any possible policy I can imagine.

It’s a mystery because it’s already been banned by Congress, and the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional. In all imaginible cases it’s clearly unethical (a view shared by medical ethicists and the vast majority of Americans), it’s illegal, and the S.C. confirmed the ban’s constitutionality. That’s three strikes against any possible policy I can imagine.

So why support it? Perhaps he’s worried about cases where the mother’s life is in danger? Nope. The statute explicitly takes care of that. “[The ban] does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

There’s no real hope of it ever being legalized, there’s a built-in exception for protecting the mother, and ethicists and most regular citizens agree that it’s roundly indefensible.

The ONLY thing I can think is that maybe he’s worried that admitting this form of abortion is wrong would open the flood gates to denouncing all forms. Sort of like when the NRA blocks completely reasonable regulations because they’re worried that any concession to the Brady Center is one step closer to firearms confiscation.

I don’t buy that argument from the NRA, and I’m not buying this one from Obama (if that’s even what he has in mind). We can support intelligent policy, finely tuned to allow precisely what should be allowed, and nothing else. Maybe an abortion is morally justified in the first case above, and it’s pretty certainly not justified in the third. Admitting as much doesn’t mean we’re wishy-washy or unsure of ourselves. It just means we’re smart enough to recognize relevant differences between cases, and honest enough to point them out. And to me, that’s far preferable to the typical “you’re either pro-life or pro-choice—there’s absolutely no middle ground” nonsense.

Obama’s shown himself to be smarter than that, and should step up to the plate—take the time to explain that while this procedure isn’t worth defending, some others may be. It’s a puzzling policy for an otherwise appealing candidate to endorse—one he ought to immediately drop.

—Matt Deaton—

Post-debate analysis undermines independent thought enough already. But in the name of expert opinion, we put up with it. However, CNN’s real-time debate EKG goes way overboard in swaying impressionable voters. It may be entertaining, but if CNN cares anything about independent critical judgment, they should pull the feature.

If you tuned in to CNN for Friday’s debate, an “audience reaction meter” cluttered the bottom of your screen. Focus groups representing Democrats, Republicans and Independents pressed one button when they heard something they liked, and another button when they heard something they didn’t. When all parties were neutral, the EKG’s blue, red and white lines (respectively) stayed in the center. When they chimed in, the lines drifted up or down with the responses. 

As we might expect, Democrats affirmed most of Obama’s comments, Republicans applauded McCain, and Independents courted both candidates. I see no harm is doing such a poll and releasing the results afterwards. Perhaps some insights could be gleaned from that might benefit someone other than McCain and Obama’s campaign managers. Maybe.

But the way it stands, my worry is that displaying the real-time results on the screen prevents viewers from judging comments for themselves. I caught myself several times rethinking the strength or weakness of a point based on those little lines. I recognized the danger and tried to counter its effects, but even then, I couldn’t help but be somewhat drawn to what other people were thinking, which made it harder for me to independently reflect on the candidates’ arguments (or lack thereof). In lecturing the Mississippians in attendance to withhold their reactions, isn’t this exactly what what Jim Lehrer was trying to prevent?

Related complaints have been levied in past years against early poll number analyses on election day. The bigger worry there isn’t just that majority opinion will truncate thought, but that it will discourage voting altogether. If an election is unofficially called based on poll results in the east, voters in the west will be more likely to stay home. And this isn’t just an East/West coast problem, but a special problem for Florida. With two time zones, a hefty chunk of electoral college votes and extremely close races in the past few cycles, some have called for media outlets to withhold unofficial numbers until all polls are closed.

That’s an aspiration the major outlets might abide by, which will do some good. But numbers are sure to leak out on the web. However, unless a viewer determined to not think for themselves simultaneously watches a live EKG web feed and a live broadcast, the EKG problem is much easier to contain.

And though the threat here isn’t as immediate (effect is probably more stark on election night), it may be just as bad on whole. In most cases, we at least have a moment or two to think for ourselves—judge candidates’ responses based on our own lights. CNN’s debate EKG removes even that glimmer if independence and makes us further slaves to majority opinion. It’s no doubt entertaining, but an overall bad idea—one CNN should scrap.

—Matt Deaton—

Bob Barr, libertarian candidate for president, reiterated today his confidence that if left alone, the market would “correct” itself. Maybe Barr can afford to withstand a “correction,” but I’m betting your average libertarian can’t. And thus, I expect the party to suffer severely in the coming months as our recession teeters dangerously close to full-blown depression.

Demand (market) economies have proven themselves more efficient, reliable and productive than command (staunch communist) economies time and again. Setting aside the obvious negative externalities of greed, consumerism, pollution, etc., no system of production and distribution better satisfies our needs and wants. So it’s natural for some to extohl the virtues of free enterprise, and even for some to make such a fetish out of it as to commit themselves to the complete marketization of… everything. This breed of libertarian supports the free market because it promotes the good of themselves, their family or their country.

But hardcore libertarians proclaim 100% property rights at all costs. For them, the minimalist state is a moral requirement, apart from the conditions on the ground—apart from its real-world effects. Their allegiance to the market is compatible with widespread poverty or general affluence or stark inequalities or relative equality—they have no ideologically consistent way to empower the state to bring about one outcome or the other. The almighty market prevails, and wherever the chips fall, we must accept them.

When it’s you and yours on the brink of homelessness, not just those lazy bums you used to scoff at, all that “hard work is always rewarded in America” talk quiets, and those evil redistributive liberals look more and more appealing.

In the real world, my guess is that most fall into the former camp. I suspect that most run of the mill self-proclaimed voting libertarians are committed to the party just long as they’re enjoying moderate economic success, or at least as long as they foresee real or imagined opportunities to ascend. For sure, some are attracted to the party’s moral permissiveness (pro-gun, gay-tolerant, anti-censorship, etc.). But I think it’s fair to say that most are in it for the economics.

Like many (if not most) voters, libertarians drift towards whichever party seems to be able to best promote their personal interests. And when you’re doing well, ultra-low taxes sound pretty darn good. Hence, given the affluence of the 90s and the relatively stable quality of life in the 00s, we should expect the party’s current popularity (as popularity goes for 3rd parties).

But if I’m correct, as the economy worsens (and with a crumbling real estate market and ever-increasing energy costs, it will worsen), party loyalists will begin to wain. When it’s you and yours on the brink of homelessness, not just those lazy bums you used to scoff at, all that “hard work is always rewarded in America” talk quiets, and those evil redistributive liberals look more and more appealing.

So I predict a significant decrease in both party influence and membership. Bob Barr is going to find it harder and harder to get common Americans to drink his capitalist kool-aid. And in fact, though I think this would be an overreaction, depending on how bad things get, we just might see a renewed interest in American communism.

—Matt Deaton—

Though race relations in the US have came light years since the middle of last century, a lingering tension remains. As a voting block, blacks have up until now been frustrated with a dearth  of viable candidates on the national scene, and at least some whites are worried that if a black is elected president, they’ll seize the opportunity to “get back” at their historical oppressors. 

Case in point, more than once I’ve been told, “If Obama wins, blacks will just take over.” While this worry may have some merit (if by “taking over” you just mean “there will be more blacks in positions of authority in Washington”), I perfer to focus on the benefits a black man or woman in the White House might bring. Atop that list: he or she would prove that Americans really do judge one another by the content of their character, which would inspire a generation of black youth absorbed in lust for violence, money and hoe’s.

Sure,  Alan Keys, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice and a handful of others have made it far. But no black has been trusted with the highest office in the land. If one were to make it all the way, it could solidify the nation like nothing else—more than every Affirmative Action program combined.

Assuming he or she doesn’t usher in the next Great Depression, start WWIII or pull a Bill Clinton, otherwise hopeless black juveniles would finally feel like they mattered too. The schools can propagandize them with “equality” talk all they like, but anyone who’s actually living the experience knows better. Plus, just one good black president could change the minds of holdout biggots—”Hey, that colored president is doing a fine job afterall!”

Already, simply beating Hillary has done a world of good. It’s shown that at least the Democratic party is on board. And heck, in a CNN interview yesterday Spike Lee said that Obama’s success shows that race relations are far better today than just a few short decades ago. As much is obvious to most of us, but when Spike actually says something like that out loud, on national television, it’s hard evidence of landmark progress.

Of course, none of the above excuses Obama’s faults. His glaring lack of experience isn’t magically washed away in light of his potential to inspire a hopeless youth or harmonize race relations. This isn’t a stand-alone reason to prefer him over McCain. But it is something voters should take into account—a serious side benefit of a black president.

—Matt Deaton—