PoliBlog(TM)

Young Conservatives on the Prowl

A couple of reactions to this NYT piece: Young Right Tries to Define Post-Buckley Future.

1) I concur that it is difficult to easily define contemporary American conservatism.

2) However, that may not be as new a thing as the article states, as it is an over-simplification to state that conservatism used to only be about anti-communisim, shrinking the federal government and maintaining social traditions.

Indeed, I think that defining the concept has always been a tad more complex than the piece allows. Clearly US conservatism is branch of classical liberalism that is skeptical of the state, it has always had various factions within it, not the least of which being that of the role of religion and textent of personal liberty.

3) It is a tad frightening that seeing all the ages of these folks as being in their mid-to-late 20s comes across to me as young (yet, it does).

4) Why is this piece in the Arts section of all places?

5) How can a guy wearing that jacket call himself a conservative?

More on the Common Good Question

Steve Verdon has an interesting post on this subject, and adds the important concept of "public goods" (as oppossed to the "common good") to the discussion.

Liberals, Conservatives and the "Common Good"

Kevin Drum thinks that Sully has shown himself to be simply a heartless conservative in his reaction to Hillary's quote (blogged earlier today) about taxs, taking things away, and the "common good":

he was annoyed because HC invoked the "common good." This is apparently all it takes to drive some conservatives nuts these days.

What a sad commentary. Of course the purpose of taxation is to provide for the common good and of course Hillary believes her agenda coincides with that common good. What else would she believe?

Apparently, though, a mere acknowledgment that she believes in advocating for the common good is anathema to Sullivan. But if that was really his gut reaction, what does he think we're all here for?

What Kevin misses is that the objection that Sullivan is likely expressing, and no doubt one that most conservatives hold in common, is not the direct objection that government does things for the common good, it is the ideological arrogance suggested by Mrs. Clinton stating that she wants to "take things away" from citizens "on behalf of the common good" because the implication is that she knows better how to better promote the common good than do those who earned their own money (and other "things").

There is a clear theoretical statement that undergirds Mrs. Clinton's pronouncement: that the best way to promote the common good is for the government to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. It assumes that Mrs. Clinton and her compatriots in the Senate know what's best for the country, and therefore believe they have the right to take from some citizens to promote that vision of the good.

The fundamental conservative revulsion at that statement in question comes from the idea that only right-thinking members of the state know what the "common good" is and, further, that only they can promote it--and can best do so with your stuff.

It is not, as Drum tries to intimate, that Sullivan (and by extension, conservatives) simply care not for the common good.

There are two additional points to be made here:

1) There is a legitimate theoretical position that the common good is better served when the population is more in charge of the wealth they earn. Further, one can argue that it is morally proper for one to keep the fruits of one's own labors.

2) The most fundamental problem here is that there is profound disagreement on what defines the "common good." To assume that one is personally imbued with the perfect definition of the "common good" is the apex of hubris, and typically leads not to any good, but rather to tyranny.

Update: Stephen Bainbridge reacts as well.

Governments are Made of People!

Chris Lawrence expounds on my post on ideology from earlier today and makes well encapsualtes at least part of what I am getting at:

Governments are comprised of people, and people are inherently flawed: they make mistakes, they aren't omniscient, and they tend to make decisions consistent with their own personal interests. Aggregating a bunch of fallible people in a government, while reducing the possibility that one person's mistake won't matter, doesn't eliminate it entirely.

On the downside his posts also reminds me that I have two textbook reviews I need to do in the next week and a half--including one due in a couple of days. UGH.

Something That Has Always Bugged Me

It is often said that "you can't legislate morality" and the phrase has, of course, been much bandied about of late for obvious reasons.

While I concur that you can't legislate what morals individuals will hold, is it not the case that all laws are predicated on some moral judgment?

It just has always struck me a vacuous formulation.

(OK, ranting over).

Compromise is the Way to Go

I have posted quite a bit more on this topic than I ever intended, but such are the exigencies of blogging. Really, there are two threads to this same-sex marriage issue, the political angle and the substantive policy/philosophical angle. Here is a somewhat lengthy take on the latter.

One issue that I have only made a glancing reference to, and that has been ignored in much of the conversation over the last couple of days is this: whether the proponents of gay marriage wish to accept this fact or not, the idea of gay marriage flies in the face of the deeply held religious and philosophical beliefs of a large number of Americans, and also contradicts the established definition of an ages-old institution. Regardless of one’s belief on this topic, one has to admit that those two facts do explain why there is a great deal of contentiousness on this subject. And no, one isn’t a homophobe if one holds these positions. One can have a true tolerance for the choices of others and still object to such ideas as changing the definition of marriage.

Look, as I have stated, I cannot construct an argument against allowing homosexual partners to have a legal union that provides them basic legal protections and that acknowledges their union before the state. For that matter, I don’t think that I can construct one that would forbid polyamory-based relationships or for non-reproductive partnerships between adult siblings, at least not in the sense that I can say why the state ought to dictate such things. I can make moral and religiously-based arguments, but not secularly derived ones that should dictate public policy.

I would note that I do not make the above statements to engage in a ludicrous slippery-slope argument to discredit gay unions. I simply cannot see what logical distinction that can be made on this subject between legal homosexual unions and three people entering into a legal union. And this is doubly true if what we are going to do is redefine marriage to mean the union of people who are deeply committed to one another. If that is the definition, then what is the logical argument for limited such a union to only two persons? Indeed, aside from strictures concerning consent and adulthood, what limiting principle could be applied if we are going to so broadly define “marriage”? The advantage of the classic definition o marriage is that it is clear. Once it is re-defined, it is rather difficult to contain that re-definition.

And I am not making that “what if a guy wants to marry his dog?” argument—I find that line of attack distasteful and a straw man of the worst sort. Nor am I arguing that gay marriage damages my marriage.

The bottom line is that “marriage” has had a very specific meaning historically and certainly within American public policy and society. If the goal is simply to provide a means for homosexual partners to achieve legal equality, then let’s go the civil union route and stop the culture war routine. Polls suggest that a large swath of the public would support that position, including some evangelical Christians such as myself, and it would avoid the marriage issue.

Yes, the debate is, to some degree, over semantics. However, words do matter and the word “marriage” matters to a lot of people and it is undemocratic, and unrealistic, for those persons to be ignored. We aren’t taking about Jim Crow, or second class citizen status, we are talking about trying to find a public policy compromise between a very small minority of persons and what is a large plurality, if not a majority, of the population. God Bless America, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase in this context, that despite the rancorous nature of the debate that a small minority could receive this much attention and not be trampled. Further, count it a blessing that there is a possible compromise position here—and, as I point out to my students, compromise is the essence of democracy.

Nader and Third Party Fun

Professor Bainbridge, James Joyner, and following Juan Non-Volokh and Glenn Reynolds, discuss the implications of the Nader candidacy. Juan and Glenn think it is healthy for electoral democracy in the US while James and Steve rightly note that third party candidates really have no shot in our system, and therefore question the actual value of Nader's run.

I would have to concur with James and Steve and would note that there is a reason that such candidates are often referred to as "vanity candidates" in the electoral studies literature.

I further concur with James that it is not the case that it is as difficult as same think it is for third parties to get access to the ballot. Yes, there are some states in which the laws are overly onerous in this regard, but on balance if a party can demonstrate some modest level of support, they can get on the ballot. I blogged on this topic here and here a while back. Indeed, I have a column that is slated to be published in the Mobile Register next Sunday that touches on this subject.

The Name Game

James Joyner asks What's in a Name?, and notes that the press wants to live in a radically simplified world in which everyone is either "liberal" or "conservative" (and maybe, occassionally, "moderate"). I personally had that experience with my brief interview with Forbes.com. The author of the profile asked me something along the lines of whether or not I considered myself to be on the "right." I answered that I considered that a complicated question (I remember specifically using the word either "complex" or "complicated") but allowed that in simple terms I blogged from a conservative perspective. He wrote: "He's an avowed conservative" which really didn't capture the essence of our conversation at all, but so it goes.

James brings up the issue because of InstaPundits experience with the press.

More on Divided Government and Policy Outcomes

Chris Lawrence responds to my response to his response of my post yesterday.

To be fair to his argument: there may be something to the theory that divided government consisting of Republicans in Congress and a Democratic in the Presidency may be more prone to fiscal restraint that the converse. I am still not convinced that there is a deep and true strain of fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party strong enough to result in the outcome that Chris wants. I think that most members of Congress are prone to spend, not to save. However, it is quite likely that there would be more government immobilism under the scenario that he describes (indeed, government shutdowns really aren’t all that bad a thing...).

Still, I am not certain that the theoretical benefits outweigh the likely costs.

And two things I really don't think would come to pass:

1) In all but rhetoric, a Kerry administration would prosecute the War on Drugs almost identically to the Bush administration (the operative issue there really isn't the AG, but the entrenched anti-war bureaucrats, and politicians from both parties, who are locked in what one bo0k evocatively called the "punitive paradigm" that has created a vast "nacro-enforcement complex"--there is simply too much money and too many jobs linked to the Drug War for it to go away without a conscious effort to dismantle it, and there isn't any political will anywhere is either party to do that). Plus there is no political will anywhere of significance to change this situation.

and,

2) I think that Kerry would prosecute the War on Terror, however, quite differently, especially when it comes to the basic approach--I think that we would return more to the Clinton era law enforcement paradigm. Not to be overly glib, but who do you think that UBL and his friends would prefer to be President--Bush or Kerry?

More on Realistic Politics

Chris Lawrence takes issue with my earlier post concerning political pragmatism. (And to set the record straight, my statements were not, per se, intended as a plea for support for Bush alone, but rather a general statement of the way I think politics actually works, and therefore the way citizens ought to approach it).

Chris makes an argument, that I have often heard, that the solution to the problem of insufficient fiscal conservatism is the return of divided government. However, I would note that in the twentieth century divided government has been the norm, and, likewise, deficits and ever-increasing spending has also been the norm, calling into question the idea that divided government results in curtailed spending. The only exception (at least in regards to deficits) was during part of the Clinton years, during which we did, in fact, have divided government. However, as I have argued before, the balanced budgets of those years were primarily a function of unexpected economic growth, not a tremendous feat of fiscal restraint the resulted from divided government. For that matter the Reagan era, one of divided government, is usually considered the hallmark of deficit politics.

I would argue that his thesis is predicated on a false assumption: that there is a pool of serious fiscal conservatism in the populace that simply needs the proper political constellation to sufficiently tap into it. I would submit that while I might wish that was the case, it simply isn't. There is no large movement, in either party, to truly contain spending or the size of government, and the issue, therefore, becomes one of which side do you prefer to do the spending.

Until there is a substantial plurality of people who really, truly want to constrain Washington, the budget will grow every year, and the issue of deficits and debts will remain with us. To wish otherwise is to deny the facts on the ground.

And I do think that in terms of national security one would see a rather substantially different world under a Kerry administration. That alone is sufficient reason to heed my prior advice. And do think that he is serious in his campaign rhetoric regarding foreign policy. Remember: this is the guy who voted against the first Gulf War even though Saddam has invaded Kuwait. I think that he is highly reticent to use force and does not have the temperament needed to fight the war on terror.

And, back to domestic policy, Republican Senators and Representatives will still seek re-election, and still spend--and since a President Kerry will proposal substantial spending as well, I just don’t see fiscal restraint being the result of divided government. Further, it isn’t as if Bush has forced (or could if he wanted to) Congress to vote for all the current spending—sometimes the Congress gets painted as the President’s lap dog, and it just ain’t so. They are not helpless before the President, Republican or not. However, I will grant Bush has more influence over them than Kerry would, of course.

I can see an argument in terms of some domestic policy that Kerry wouldn’t be radically different as long as a Republican congress was in place, but there would still be differences (but I wouldn’t expect radical difference if we had all Democrats in Washington in 2024, at least in terms of domestic policy).

However, there would still be important differences. For example: the judgeship issue and I don’t just mean in regards to specific social conservative issue (although abortion is important to me), but just the general idea of having judges who at least make an effort to simply judge the law and let legislators legislate. I consider this to be rather significant.

And a side note the “social conservative” issue: prostitution really isn’t that much of an issue for the DoJ, so that strikes me as a non-starter of an example. And in regards to the drug war (which I oppose on efficacy grounds, btw), a Democratic president is unlikely to function any differently than a Republican one on that one. From Nixon to the present the funding for the drug war has simply grown, and while Carter discussed support for legalizing marijuana, the basic approach to illegal drugs has been be pretty consistent across partisan lines. Indeed, the massive increase in funding to Colombia under “Plan Colombia” was under Clinton.

Hence, the choice is more complex than simply a delineation of fiscal v. social conservatives and the institutions of government they need to fuel their goals. And I reject the divided government thesis. Sure, divided government would mean more executive-legislative conflict, but why would that automatically result in fiscal restraint?

To be honest, I cannot conceive a situation arising in which the net policy desires of conservatives of any stripe would be furthered by a Kerry win, unless they occurred by sheer serendipity.

And I now return the ball to Chris's court, as I no doubt guess he would like to respond.

Space: Too Good for Us?

Lileks comments on Patrick Stewarts's recent statements on space travel. On the one hand, I don't much care what Stewart thinks, and it really doesn't affect my view of his work in Trek or elsewhere. I find him to be a rather talented actor.

However, of all the criticisms to level at space-exploration, this has got to be the silliest I have heard:

I would like to see us get this place right first before we have the arrogance to put significantly flawed civilizations out onto other planets," Stewart said

So, because we are imperfect and arrogant, we should stay on the big blue marble? and who, precisely, are we going to corrupt with our arrgoance if establish a moon base, go to Mars, or mine the asteroids?

Hat tip: Stephen Green.

Evolutionary Bubbles?

Gee whiz, does Megan have any idea how many words she is giving away?

Ah well, it is an interesting post. I am not sure I buy the evolution thesis, but it's worth a read.

The Freedom Brigade

James of OTB and Matthew J. Stinson have issues with Reason's 35 Heroes of Freedom (since 1968). Matthews' assessment is apt:

Is it just me, or does Reason's list of "35 Heroes of Freedom" read like it was written by the president of a high school Cbjectivist club?

Indeed.

The list includes such luminaries as Larry Flynt, Dennis Rodman, Madonna and Willie Nelson (and declares John Ashcroft to scourge of Civil Liberties everywhere), while leaving off, as James notes, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Lech Walesa. Heck, I'd put Antonin Scalia, Helmut Kohl and Boris Yeltsin on the list well before Reason's list of show business libertines. I'm with James: Dennis Rodman? Please.

Sometimes I think that hardcore libertarians have a hard time distinguishing between the idea that people have the right to do what they will with as little government interference as possible without acknowledging that it doesn't mean that these behaviors in and of itself are good, or produces good for the person in question. And, by “good” in this contest, I am not talking about moral good (that’s a different discussion), but the lack of harm to the individual engaged in the activity.

Drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and hedonism in general can produce harmful outcomes in the lives of those who pursue such actions. That isn't to say that the government should stop people from doing such--I tend to agree with Mill's Harm Principle--but that still doesn't mean that such behaviors should be extolled as virtues. And in the real world, an individual who fought to defeat tyrannical governments is substantially more important to the process of forwarding freedom than someone who makes it easier to see pictures of naked people, or who make us feel better about smoking weed.

Of course, since the article was subtitled “Celebrating the people who have made the world groovier and groovier since 1968”—it may be possible to get a clue ad to Reason’s definition of “freedom”.

The Power of Primaries

To underscore part of what I am talking about, I would reference the Democratic Primary in Texas in 1996. That year Republican Senator Phil Gramm was up for re-election and the Texas Democratic Party wanted to field a strong candidate to hopefully unseat Gramm. The party elites actively recruited US Rep John Bryant to run in the primary. One his challengers for the nomination was a High School teacher named Victor Morales. Morales, sans political experience, sans much money, sans party support, won a plurality of the vote in the 1996 primary, and went on to beat Bryant in a head-to-head run-off.

The party elite did not support Morales, but the voters preferred him. Oddly enough, he won the nomination (although Gramm did soundly beat him in the general election).

Some related stories:

Caveat on Duverger’s Rule

As I pointed out below, single-member districts with plurality winners tend to produce two party systems. There are some exceptions, as Chris noted on his blog yesterday. The UK has essentially the same electoral system as the US, but they have a number of smaller parties that do win seats to the House of Commons. This is owing, primarily, to regional parties that can win limited seats in their local constituencies. However, on balance, the system still has two dominant parties (indeed, it is often referred to as a “two and a half” party system).

It is not inconceivable that in the US regional parties could emerge, and indeed, third parties have been moderately (to overstate a bit) successful in Alaska (as Jeff notes in his comments to this post), where there is a very distinct political sub-culture.

Duverger's Law

One of the basic reaons that we have two large parties is that single-member district system that award seats based on pluralities tend to promote large, catch-all parties. This is the essence of "Duverger's Law".

For those interested in this issue of electoral systems promoting particular types of party systems, I would cite the following sites:

Another Blogging-Relevant Toon

This goes along well with this morning's Dilbert offering.

How Odd

I have never seen this in students, bloggers, commentators, or academics:

So, what is Scott Adams talking about?

The Same Topic Continued...

While on the topic, Jonah Goldberg's current column: Conservative study reveals academic bias is also on the topic of the "study" of conservatism," which he summarizes as follows:

Now, this whole thing is what I like to call a pinata of asininity - bash it from any angle and from any distance and you will get some reward.

Go ahead, read the whole thing.

Hitler Doesn't Make the Cut Either

Nor do the following excerpts from "The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party" comport well with the ideological perspectives of modern American conservatives:

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Il Duce was No Conservative

Yesterday, I made reference to a study that purports to demonstrate what a "conservative" is, and it ain't pretty.

The press release from the study proffered Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh as four "individuals" who nonetheless all exemplified "right-wing conservat[ism]". This struck me as, shall we say, a bit ridiculous.

In my original post I stated that the study poorly defined conservatism, and in the comments section I noted that I would eventually blog on what I thought was a proper definition of conservatism. This post is more about what conservatism in the American context isn't--specifically, it isn't fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini. As the title of the post says, Il Duce was no conservative.

Fascism was a decided illiberal ideology--indeed, it was anti-liberal (in the classical sense). And sense American conservatism is an offshoot of classical liberalism, I have a rather hard time with the Berkley study's categorization of Mussolini and Hitler with Reagan and Limbaugh.

For example, in Mussolini's own definition of fascism, he states the following:

You Have Got to be Kidding Me...

Cal Thomas' column today discusses a psychological study, which purports to explain "conservatives":

The American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin has published a study of why conservatives are the way they are. The study was conducted by four researchers, who, according to a press release from the University of California at Berkeley's (UCB) media relations office, "culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism." (Two of the researchers are professors at UCB, which apparently remains imprisoned in '60s dysfunctionality.) The researchers conclude that conservatives suffer from a disease or malady that makes them think the way they do.

And, what's the obsession with conparing conservtives to Hitler and friends?

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article. (from the Press Release from UCB).

Plus, based on reading the Press Release, I question their operationalization of the concept "conservative".

The issue isn't online yet, so I can't get to the abstract. However, here are some other stories on the study:

Brightly on the Radio

Despite the fact that I am tired of the Bright Meme, I found it amusing yesterday that it was a topic of discussion on both the Rush Limabugh Show and the Michael Medved Show.

Existential Sign?

I saw this one several times in New Mexico:

Dust Storms May Exist for the Next 15 Miles

They may exist, but really, who can say?

Burned Out

By the way, I am officially burned out on the Bright Meme. Basically I had only two issues: 1) I thought the name was a tad pretentious, if not silly, and 2) my objections were in regards solely to the issue of intellectual prejudice when operating in the realm of the mind, where I think there is a prevailing assumption that anyone who believe in the supernatural in any way is somehow less intellectually capable.

Although I will say that Dean Esmay's talk about "negative energy" in some comments the other day sure sounded rather metaphysical, if not downright supernatural, to me ;)

More Brightology

Some points of clarification:

More on the Bright Affair

Dean Esmay, in comments to this post, noted that he thought that there was some defensiveness in my (and others) response to the Bright meme.

I wouldn't call it being defensive. Rather I find some of the inferences insulting and offensive. I am not sure where I was defending anything.

There is a rather steady stream of "people who believe in God aren't really as smart as those of us who don't" kind of thing in this particular discourse. The "Easter Bunny" line being part of the give-away in this piece.

If intellectuals with a theistic view of the universe were constantly carping about how they are really smarter than those silly naturalists, then I suspect that there would be some defensiveness on the part of the naturalists.

And in this particular context I find this idea of "outing" to be absurb on its face given that the vast majority of academics are far from religious.

Let's turn that scenario on its head: imagine the response to coments to an academic audience in which a person were to confess their evagelical Christian views. I guarantee you that the reaction would be far from positive.

And This is New How?

In reveiwing Being A Bright, I am further struck that this is absolutely, positively nothing new. It used to go under the banner of "scular humanism" and on balance is a fairly mainstream view amongst academics.

Here's how the site describes how one might discuss being Bright:

Scenario. Suppose you are in a discussion with someone and the question of religion comes up. If someone inquires about your own religion, you can pop up with "Well, actually, I am a Bright." The other person's curiosity will probably take hold: "A Bright? What is that?"

One of the advantages of the word “Bright� is that it allows a really simple and straightforward assertion. You state "A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic (free of supernatural and mystical elements)." Then, if your listener is truly interested in learning more, you can always proceed to extend the discussion and to explain more fully any philosophical basis behind your particular or favored category label(s).

Brightly Arrogant

While I understand the cutesy Enlightment connection to the "bright" idea, I find Daniel C. Dennett's column, The Bright Stuff, to be a study in arrogance, even though he states that the appellation is not a boast:

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

The reason I state that this is arrogant, is because the main inference being made here is that to be inquisitive, indeed to be intelligent and thinking, one cannot possibly believe in God, or hold to any religious view whatsoever. I find this to be a preposterous position, and one which flies in the face of the empirical evidence of many incredibly intelligence and curious individuals who have made profound intellectual contributions to mankind.

And if one is so enlightened, it one should clearly know that lumping a religious world-view in with believing in the Easter Bunny is intentionally provocative and, further, an intellectually dishonest mixing of categories.

Accepting that there is some tongue-in-check going on in the column, I still think that this business about “coming out” as a Bright is ludicrous. As if, 1) there is a systematic bias in the society against those who hold intellectually secularist views (which is rally what this “Bright” business is properly called, and 2) that especially in the academic community that this is some sort of big deal is laughable. Rather, the minority in that community is the religiously-minded, not that other way around.

Announcing that one hold a secular humanist view of the universe, and renounces the supernatural at an academic conference is like announcing that one likes beer at a frat party.

Indeed, the article may be less tongue-in-cheek than I originally thought, as there is an official Brights homepage. Really, exactly what is new here aside from the label?

Hat tip: Kevin Drum

Party Hardy

Here's a nice set of links on various models of party formation. Indeed, my polisci geekness is confirmed in that I find a site that discusses Duverger's Law, Downs' Median Voter Theory, and Riker's theories on coaltion formation to be a cool site indeed.

One of My Pet Peeves

Philip K. Howard (not to be confused with one-time Presidential candidate Howard Phillips) in his Time column asks the following question concerning our health care system:

why can't somebody just use common sense and fix things?

This question ranks up as one of my top Pet Peeves of Politics (up there with "why can't we all just get along," and "we should just do the people's business"). The retort is quite simple: we don't all agree on what constitutes "common sense." When people appeal to "doing the right thing" or "what's right" it is normally in a context where there is no prima facie right thing to do, but rather a legitimate debate exists. I will grant that sometimes there is a clear right thing to do, but those circumstances are rare, especially in public policy.

Politics is about the reasoned (and sometimes unreasonable) interchange of ideas, and democracy especially is about compromise. Appeals to "common sense" and so forth are an attempt to dodge the debate and cast those who don't agree with you as favoring the unreasonable (because, if Congress, or whomever, isn't seeing "common sense", then they are clearly ignoring the obvious, correct?). This is not legitimate argumentation.

Plus, common sense ain't always what it's cracked up to be.

The Harm Principle

James of OTB links to a thread started by Eugene Volokk and continued by Kevin Drum on the ideological underpinnings of libertarianism, and the "Harm Principle" in particular.

For those who care, here's the origin of said Principle from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

While clearly there is much that requires definition is such a statement, there is a rather significant question being asked here: when is it legitimate to interfere with the liberty of others? A question that the government had to address constantly, and one that governments frequently get wrong.

Indeed, the main issue here is when should the government be able to force me to do, or not to do, something. And the main claim that is being argued against is that the government should not be allowed to control my actions just because it would be good for me to do so.