New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 55% [?]

Here was a good article that I found in today’s Op-Ed section of the NYT.

“I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.”

“My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To read the rest of this article please follow the link to the NYT page.

Another take on the Obama controversy comes from Peter Wehne. It takes a slightly different take than the one written by Bill Kristol but provides an equally important analysis.

Senator Barack Obama finds himself in the midst of a controversy in the aftermath of comments that he made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, during which he explained his difficulty appealing to working-class voters in Pennsylvania. He said, “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. . . .”

Senator Obama’s words are significant because they were said off-the-record, meaning they provided a more authentic glimpse into the attitudes of Obama than a carefully scripted event. Nonetheless, his words were not merely careless; his comments were based on a carefully constructed, if deeply condescending, explanation.

To read the rest of the article please follow the link to the National Review Online.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Since the “Yes, We Can” music video has become somewhat of an internet hit at DipDive, Will.I.Am has chartered a new video called “We Are The Ones,” which to me appears to be even more inane and idolizing than the first. Whenever I discuss with others how bizarre these videos are, they make point to mention that they are not sanctioned by the Obama campaign as if that absolves him. But, actually, the fact that the video was not his campaign’s doing is perhaps even more frightening than otherwise. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into their messianic self-regard is when it ceases to be cute and becomes, instead, just frightening. For when voters begin viewing any public figure as transcendent, it gives them free reign to as they wish politically, with less and less opposition.

You can see the video by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 44% [?]

Bill Buckley, the conservative writer, commentator, and founder of National Review, died yesterday at the age of 82 in the town neighboring my own. I have subsequently spent time reading more on the man and watching more of him. His prominence is owed to his unfettered defense of conservatism throughout the post-WWII era when the Left really dominated the zeitgeist and moderates, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller, had a hold of the Republican Party. Today, American politics is centered noticeably further to the right in part because of Buckley’s promotion of figures from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Regan. And the fact that it is now hard to imagine the Nixons and Rockefellers of the world leading the GOP is a tribute to Buckley’s way with words.

In the second-ever issue of his brain-child, the National Review, he declared the magazines mission statement, which included its famous vow to “stand athwart history yelling, stop.” While this represents my own fundamental discontent with the philosophy of conservatism–for no philosophy can have merit by virtue of being the status quo–it appeals to both my romantic sense, by unequivocally promising to fight for a successful tradition, and my rational one, by standing for limited government and individualism at a time when collectivism was rising to the top of the intellectual order.

The doctrines of conservatism, which today is often cast as a three-legged stool consisting of aggressive national defense, traditional social values, and economic libertarianism, was different in many ways from what it was in 1955. Perhaps the biggest change from early Cold War conservatism, was the relative rise of the third prong, economic libertarianism, which Buckley was particularly known for. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he floated between the self-label of conservative and libertarian for some time during the latter part of his career. Additionally, he came out against the war on drugs later in life, but at the same time his reasoning was rooted in the impracticality of the fight rather than individual rights–hardly the essence of a true libertarian.

Politics aside, what remembrances seem to have concentrated on are the style of the man himself and his unmatched way with words. Watching him and hearing him and reading him, I gained a sense of an aura of refined elitism–and I mean that in only the best way–that arose from his able mind and own rebelilon against the liberal intelligentsia. His quick wit and sesquipedalian vocabulary were second to none and made his writing unmistakable.

Of all the obituaries I read today, here are the links to the five best:

from The New York Times

from Ann Coulter

from The Nation

and from the the two most Buckley-esque journalists left: Peggy Noonan and George Will

While the sources of these articles generally mix as well as water and vinegar, all of their memorials include great recollections of the man and are well done. The irony of the timing of Buckley’s death is that it coincided with the nomination of a Republican presidential candidate who is out of favor with self-proclaimed conservatives and who appeals to the center of politics, while the Democrats may be running on their most liberal platform in decades this year. The question remains: did Buckley die alongside the modern conservative movement for which he served as a fountainhead? I think that is probably overly-simplistic, but the question has been asked and is well worth asking. I anticipate that the American conservatism is still politically strong despite an unpopular president and will remain more like the party of Ronald Reagan than that of Gerald Ford in the years to come.

Popularity: 54% [?]

The candidate who manages the economy least.

At least that is the theme of John Stossel’s newest article, which hits the proverbial nail on the head. So often the question regarding the economy in presidential elections is who will best “manage” it. But that question, especially the term “manage” really implies that inevitably the president will be exerting a great deal of control over the economy, and the issue is relates more to how the president will then allocate spending and taxation and regulation–how he or she will “man the controls.”

But in reality, the question should be more open-ended and have more choices. Rather than ask, how the president will manage the economy, we should first ask, will the president manage the economy, and if so, how much.

By addressing the basic issues of government’s place in the economy, which voters systematically ignore in favor of the same amount of executive control year after year, Stossel is able to put into perspective the economic nonsense that Congress or the president is directly responsible for growth.

He writes:

Sen. Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. … You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.”

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. “Power” in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president — no matter how smart — to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?

They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people.

Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.

Popularity: 39% [?]

Contrary to his 2004 bid, where he ran independently, “consumer advocate” and Democratic ball-buster Ralph Nader announced his candidacy president today.

Of course, for Democrats with a Nader complex this is an ominous prospect in for the upcoming election. But lest liberals worry too much, the truth is that this news really doesnt matter, and I am quite surprised that the announcement has garnered as much attention as it has this Sunday.

While Nader certainly had an effect in 2000, garnering 2.7% of the vote, after much ado was made of the roll he played, he only managed .3% in 2004–virtually identical to the Libertarian candidate in the same election. Nader has over-stayed his welcome in the mind of liberals, and along with the enthusiasm of Democrats in this election, there should be no reason to think that he will affect the results in November. Don’t believe me? Take Nader at his word:

The consumer champion, who will turn 74 this week, rejected suggestions that he would damage the prospects of the Democratic candidate. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form,” he said.

Lastly, while Nader compiles little in the vote column, he never ceases to raise that age old question of whether to vote for the candidate who you are most closely alined with even if they dont have a chance, or vote for the least of evils among those who do have a shot at victory.

My own answer is typically somewhere in between. Not only does it depend on how much publicity the candidate can get–and ultimately how they can affect the discussion and undertone of the American political landscape–but also how close the candidate is to my views. As is, I may be closer on most issues to the Libertarian Party, but not only are they not close enough to my political philosophy but they have a negligible effect on America’s zeitgeist. To the contrary, my many reservations aside, I chose to support Ron Paul for the GOP nomination this year because he had a big enough forum to influence how voters–at least a notable fraction of them–think.

With all the money he raised, he hopefully was able to move the GOP a little further towards a platform of limited government than they were before. It may sound modest, but by focusing on the political discussion rather than number of votes, one can look towards affecting who is elected not just immediately, but also in the long run.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics has said that, “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” However, individual and political freedoms are on the decline in Russia, even as Russia has been reaping the rewards of a capitalist market economy under the leadership of President Putin. This trend toward less political freedom in Russia, if left unchecked, may result in a return to the authoritarian rule Russia endured in the Soviet era. So, what can the United States and the international community do to stop this?

Before Putin became President, Russia had been subjected to drastic economic and political reforms under President Yeltsin. This shock therapy resulted in the Russian government defaulting on loans worth billions of dollars, the value of the ruble dropping precipitously, and unemployment becoming rampant. As a result of this turmoil, many Russians desired a stronger central government that could offer them stability. Stability was the stated goal of Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, and he achieved this through the consolidation of state power on all levels. While the internal security and stability have markedly increased during Putin’s reign, personal freedoms, including both political and economic freedom, have been declining. Economic freedom is now dismal; Russia ranks 120th out of 157 in the Index of Economic Freedom, a product of the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.

Prominent businessmen have been put in prison, journalists bullied and sometimes killed, and privately owned companies, including media outlets and energy conglomerates, are being gobbled up by the State. This lack of political freedom is directly related to Russia’s lack of economic freedom. Indeed, Milton Friedman has said, “Restrictions on economic freedom inevitably affect freedom in general, even such areas as freedom of speech and press.”

Fortunately, for Putin, there have been dramatic increases in oil and natural gas prices. Russia has the most proven reserves of natural gas in the world, and this has been the main driving force of Russia’s economy. The wealth pouring into Russia’s coffers through its energy industries have made it possible for Putin to distract the Russian populace from the lack of personal freedoms. As such, political and economic freedoms have been on the decline, despite economic prosperity.

Establishing economic freedom in Russia is the key to increasing political freedom. Rather than punitive economic or diplomatic sanctions, the United States and the international community should attempt to use the forces of the market to compel economic, and thus political freedoms on Russia. Reduced energy prices would make the economic shortcomings of Russia more apparent to its own people. There are two ways to reduce oil and gas prices in a market economy: increase energy supplies globally, or reduce gas and oil demand through development of alternate energy sources or through conservation. Utilizing these market forces would be a long-term endeavor, but in a climate of lower energy prices, Russia’s economic prosperity would then more accurately reflect its lack of economic freedom. There would then be a chance for internal pressures to force Russia to make true economic reforms, and, hopefully, to create the right environment for political freedoms to take hold and flourish.

Popularity: 36% [?]

From the front page of the NYT:

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal — No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. ”)

This part of the bible not only kept LDS from permitting blacks in their church but it doubtlessly provided motivation for many Mormons to oppose the advancement of equality under law for blacks especially in the 1960s. The same bible story was used as a justification for slavery as late as the middle 19th century in America. Even as race relations improved it was not until 1978 that the Mormon Church opened admission for blacks.

Translate this to today as Mitt Romney runs for president. It appears that Romney is only experiencing minimal disadvantage because of his religion, which is a good sign. The reason for this is even better–the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney. This brings me to a bigger point that it is not simply enough to have a seperation of church and state, but there also should be a separation of church and politics in that a politician’s religious dogma should not affect their political decision making.

Its not enough to prevent laws which discriminate based on personal belief systems from being passed. The first amendment cannot check legislation which is motivated by religion but does not explicitly mention any. Hence it is important to pay attention to the religious implication of our political candidates. So far it appears like Romney’s relatively plain politics are not altered by his relatively absurd religious beliefs, but if we do not maintain a watchful eye over all our public figures the injury we could incur from the poison of religious politics is immeasurable.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Arnold Kling of EconLog writes:

From my point of view, the first-best world is one with (i) open borders and (ii) limited government. One argument against (i) is that it would eventually undermine (ii)…

However, I can think of a number of reasons that the correlation between (i) and (ii) could be positive rather than negative. For tyrants, open borders would offer a powerful check on power. Robert Mugabe would have a harder time exploiting his people if they all just got up and left. Our own government would be smaller if we said that its job did not include interfering with peaceful transactions between American employers and non-American-born employees…

Kling offers a stance on immigration that both parties in America are currently sidestepping. On one hand the GOP would never think of providing (illegal) immigrants with entitlements, but they also want to retard immigration and criminalize all undocumented immigrants. On the other hand the Democrats want liberalized immigration but they are also more than willing to give social services to all kinds of immigrants at the same time. At the same time neither party offers a true free market solution.

The free market solution to immigration should encompass (a) liberalized immigration restrictions and (b) no welfare benefits for undocumented immigrants. I have no problem with “illegals”. Their added labor puts more muscle power as well as mind power into the system, while–as long as (b) holds true, and they do not receive vast amounts of social welfare–they drain nothing from it.

Open borders are a pure sign of freedom, so it is troubling that there is currently such ill-will in America towards it. As Kling implies, it is indicative of a dictator to close borders to keep people in (i.e. Soviet Union), but it is also authoritarian to close borders to keep them out. In a free country people should be able to move freely not just within its borders but across them too.

Some may warn, that if we allow too many of a certain demographic (in our case Hispanics) to come, they could eventually sway the policies of our country in the direction of their native governments (i.e. bigger). There are two ways of preventing that–and it certainly must be prevented. (A) Don’t give many of them citizenship. Just because they should be able to come here freely doesn’t mean that we should sacrifice to accommodate them. They can stay here but they need not be citizens; this way they can neither vote nor collect public welfare benefits. (B) There should be provisions written into the law to prevent the government from becoming to big. Perhaps the founders would have been upset with how far their successors have stretched the elastic clause, but the fact of the matter is that there could be greater specifications limiting the size of our government. (For instance: “The Federal Budget may not grow above 15% of GDP…” etc.)

Additionally, open borders provide capital mobility, which is of great benefit to the market. If we can have mobility of inanimate capital (in the form of imports, exports, outsourcing, insourcing, etc.), we should have mobile human capital. Free trade and free markets should include freer immigration, shouldn’t it? As I see it, it would only make our economy stronger.

Popularity: 66% [?]

There’s a great article today on Real Clear Politics illuminating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy both philisophically and in relation to the modern political landscape. Here’s a dosage:

Against such an overwhelming tide of grandiosity and hubris, it sounds farcical to suggest that non-interventionism will some day sway voters and find eventual electoral success. But it will.

First though, it’s important to distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism. The former seeks a more rigorous and delimited definition of America’s interests, while the latter a walled garden that completely cuts America off from the world. Non-interventionists are not pacifists, but they do reserve war fighting for moments of actual national peril. (Paul, for instance, voted to authorize war in Afghanistan in 2001.) They do not view the military as an instrument of social policy. If war is to be fought, non-interventionists demand a Congressional declaration of war to ensure that the conflict is one in which the nation’s resources are fully brought to bear. 

(The italics are mine.) If the standard for foreign policy is what will further America’s self interest–that being what will preserve the freedom and prosperity of the American people–a non-interventionalist foreign policy has a good amount of merit. Here are the basic reasons why:

-It ensures that America won’t entangle itself in costly foreign entanglements.

-It ensures that America won’t sacrifice its health or resources to other nation’s problems or interests, nor engage itself unless American interests are at stake.

-It ensures that America will not engage itself militarily unless the security of its freedom has been attacked or is under imminent threat.

-It ensures that America will not employ military force unless Congress declares war and both the legislative branch and the executive are resolved in doing so.

-It ensures that when America does go to war it does so swiftly and forcefully, for the sake of total destruction of the enemy; it ensures that war will not be fought half heartedly or with mercy, nor that we go to war for reasons relating to occupation or nation building. 

Perhaps I am projecting too positively on Ron Paul’s foreign policy, because it is worth pointing out that I believe that he has applied it poorly in several ways today. He is right to say that Iraq should not have been invaded, he is right to say that Iraq was managed poorly, he was right to say that we should have invaded Afghanistan.

However he is wrong to say that we largely created the threat, he is wrong to say that Iran should not be touched, and he is very wrong to advocate the just war theory. (The fact that he is for the feeble-fighting ways of the just war theory would probably show that Paul would dissent from the first half of my last point, that when we fight we should do “so swiftly and forcefully and for the sake of total destruction of the enemy).

So while Dr. Paul’s domestic policy is unequivocally good, I can find both good and bad in his foreign policy. 

It hurts to be ambiguous.  

Popularity: 51% [?]