Res Publica

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislature, executive, and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.” – Alexander Hamilton

Even before the election, I began more frequently to hear people say that America is not a democracy, usually with a tone implying that they knew much more on the subject, and a raise of the eyebrows as if to say “You must have known this, doesn’t everybody?” Most of the time, but not always, its followed up with the assertion that the United States if, of course, a republic. This is pseudo-historical nonsense. As someone who has spent his entire life studying history both formally and informally, the only thing more infuriating than Americans being willingly ignorant of history, is Americans believing themselves to have a good understanding of our history while in fact remaining ignorant. The illusion of knowledge actively prevents the acquisition of knowledge. The idea that the US is not a democracy is dangerous because it excuses transgressions against the people.

America was founded as, always has been, and currently remains, a democracy. The misunderstanding, I think, comes in the degrees of democracy we have passed through in our almost 250 year history. Today, we come close, in many ways, to being a pure democracy. As close as it is possible to come in the modern world. Senators, representatives, state legislatures, and local offices are directly elected top to bottom. The electoral college is one of the few holdovers from the founding, but it has been skewed from its original purpose by state laws directing electors to cast their votes according to the popular election results in each state. There is no factual basis for saying that the US is not currently a democracy.

So we’re a democracy today, but maybe that was not the original intent of the founders?

The founders were almost universally well educated, most at schools like Harvard, Kings College (now Columbia), the College of New Jersey (now Princeton), and the College of William & Mary. This kind of education, at that time, came with a heavy dose of the classical, meaning the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Most founders were extremely familiar with the writings of Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch, Cicero, etc. From this education they formed an idea of the ideal government having elements of several forms of representation. Herodotus in particular set forth the opinion that there were three basic forms of government – monarchy (power residing in one man), aristocracy/oligarchy (power residing in a group of men), and democracy (power residing in all men). Each form had its benefits and each its faults. The ideal form of government would then be a compilation of the three, using the strong suits in each to check the faults of the others.

But the founders were also men of the Enlightenment, familiar with writers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, and others. Particularly in Locke, but supported by others, we see the idea that the only legitimate government must derive its power from the consent of the governed, and of course we see this phrase pop up in official instruments of state and other writings from the founders. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson notes that the ability to alter or abolish a government is exclusively the right of the people. Despite modern conservatives’ attempts to co-opt the phrase “We the People” for use as a reference solely to themselves at the exclusion of the majority, the significance of it is that the Constitution asserts from the first line that power is reserved to the people rather than to any part of the government then elaborated.

It is true that the founders included several undemocratic aspects as checks on immoderate public opinion. For example, senators were not originally directly elected but were chosen by the legislatures of each state, the electoral college was originally a group of people selected to cast their votes for president as they saw fit, political parties are able to choose nominees for offices without a public (primary) vote, and obviously many segments of society were not included in the original group of eligible voters, like women, slaves, and most minorities. These were included because of well-founded concerns that the voting public could be easily worked up to vote emotionally. But in fact, democracy was the basis for the system, with only these checks to moderate it. While senators were not directly elected, the legislatures that chose them were. Likewise, presidential electors were chosen by others who had themselves been elected. The Constitution itself was debated in the constitutional convention, by delegates from the states, but it was only adopted after being ratified by popular referendum in each state.

The statement that the US is a republic, as if that on its own is a meaningful definition, is simply nonsense. The word republic comes from the Latin phrase Res Publica, meaning something like the “public concern” or “public affairs”. It is a general term for any government that claims to represent the people. Of the 206 modern sovereign states that exist today, 159 claim to be republics. North Korea and Iran are republics, so I guess we have the same kind of government as them?

What we were founded as is a representative democracy, in which the people retain the ultimate legitimate power, but delegate it under defined conditions to representatives. This is merely a functional necessity given geographic size, population size, and modern speed of life. In ancient Athens you could say “Ok the last ship that came into port says the Persians are marching. They’re going to be here in like six months. So do we resist them, send a few guys to talk to the Spartans, what? Lets all get together in the square next week sometime and talk it out.” But the dreaded 2AM call isn’t going to go out to every registered man and woman in the United States.

The statement that America is not a democracy also points to a deeper misunderstanding. Democracy does not simply denote the process of voting for open offices or on given propositions. It also indicates an open civil society and guaranteed rights. I think most Americans see these aspects as essential to liberty, though they are routinely taken away by so-called republics around the world. Winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” I think a lot of people have a general feeling of frustration along those lines right now, and this unfortunate misconception is one of the ways it manifests.

Empathy

I’ve heard a lot in the run up to the election and after about empathy – Biden supposedly has it and Trump does not. In the campaign Biden supporters emphasized that he would have empathy for those affected by Covid, for minorities, for veterans and their families, etc. Biden even stressed that he would have empathy for Trump supporters, their economic hardships and concerns. You either have empathy for all or its not really empathy, its just playing to your base or staying in your bubble. What will this look like?

Lets consider how the election actually went. This was the highest vote total in US history by far, not just in absolute number but also in percentage of eligible voters. There were 25-30million more voters than in 2016. Yet despite Donald Trump being arguably the worst and most dangerous president in American history and the Republican Party being exposed as a stable of cringing bootlickers (in my personal opinion) the presidential election came down to a couple of swing state squeakers, the Senate was not retaken, and the Democrats actually lost seats in the House of Representatives. This means that the huge turnout wasn’t just disgusted liberals coming out to defeat Trump, it was also a huge amount of conservatives (whether or not they considered themselves Trump supporters) coming out but in slightly lesser numbers. Why?

Its clear to me that there is some kind of disconnect here; and worse, I’ve detected a resistance on the part of some of my liberal acquaintances to trying to understand conservatives, specifically conservatives that support Trump. When the subject comes up, there is usually just an expression of bafflement, “How can they support that (racist, liar, con-man, disgusting person, etc)?” and then its just left there, without an effort to actually figure out an answer. After all, if someone is being a racist or advocating for something or someone that is clearly damaging to America, why should you show them the respect of trying to hear them out? Why wouldn’t you just oppose them in any way you can? Doesn’t listening to angry white guys, afraid for their historical privilege, just continue down the path of systemic racism and domination that is diametrically opposed to what liberals should stand for? Why coddle them? Who cares about their feelings?

Of all the Trump supporters I’ve spoken to, very very few of them will attempt to argue that he is a good or honest person. Its obvious what he is. It is unfortunate that his nature gives liberals a seemingly solid footing for not wanting to compromise. But you can’t just lecture people and continuously tell them they’re wrong, assuming that at some point in the future they will either miraculously get it or stop mattering. Sweeping changes may be called for in our social, economic, government systems (and I personally believe that this is the case), but people who disagree must be convinced. We still live in a democracy, and however close some people have come, I haven’t heard anyone yet come right out and say it should be done away with. This means we will either have to learn to live with a dangerously malfunctioning system, or learn to hear and compromise with each other. Some feel that if the goal is noble and good, then compromise is a failure. But as Voltaire said “The best is the enemy of the good.” Compromise isn’t as good as the perfect system, and its unsatisfying. Deal with it.

So where do we start tying to understand the Right? I’ll not try to hide the fact that I think support for Donald Trump, and the willing suspension of disbelief it calls for, is a cry for help. Some serious needs are not being met, and people are desperate for answers, any answers, doesn’t matter if they’re true or false. People around the country are looking at their lives and thinking “This cannot be the way our country is supposed to work.”

In my liberal friends and family, I find a general acceptance of the concept that things like crime, drug abuse, dysfunctional family situations, teen pregnancy, homelessness, etc, while all containing some element of personal responsibility, are more appropriately considered as societal failings. Crime and drug use for example are seen as symptoms of poverty and hopelessness. However, at the same time there is resistance to seeing things like racism (or more often denial that racism is a problem), religious extremism, and science denial may be similar symptoms of a societal failure. These are often seen as personal failings that should not be catered to.

It is a fact that the geographic areas of the US where Trump support is concentrated are historically conservative areas. They are areas that, compared to the coasts, do not offer the same economic or educational opportunities to their residents. Growing income inequality has hit these places harder than other areas. TV and social media show these people that they are being left behind. Free trade policy, while being undeniably better for the country as a whole, growing GNP by huge amounts, does nothing to bestow the benefits equally. The effect has been to lose low paying factory jobs and gain higher paying technical and service jobs. More money is brought into the US, but it is concentrated in the cities. The Democratic Party focus on social issues like racism, equal rights for LGBTQ people, college loans, etc are, again in my personal opinion, good and sadly overdue. But some who are struggling may justifiably wonder, “How are we supposed to focus on these other groups when we can barely support our own kids.” They may feel that even asking that question is then seen as racist. When basic needs – an ability to pay the bills, to send your kids to a good school, to give them the same opportunities as other kids in other places, to feel equal worth, to feel like you’re not being ignored – when these needs are not being met, groups of people will develop an over-reliance on things that they cannot lose, like race, like religion, like their political affiliation, like their “values”.

I’m not crying here “Oh poor white people. How come things aren’t as easy as they used to be. Bla bla bla.” Once again friends, we live in a democracy, and unless you want 75million people enthusiastically searching for someone who can destroy it, then these facts must be considered. I’m not suggesting that we focus on economic opportunity for white people in the south and midwest at the expense of equality and dignity for all. I’m suggesting that the most powerful country, and the foundation of democracy in the world, can do two things at once. And if you’re fed up with politicians, think one is as bad as the next, they’ll never fix these problems – well then stop whining and take it upon yourself to lead by example. When you see someone acting in a way you don’t approve of, try to understand why they are acting that way. Don’t excuse it, explain it. Exercise empathy.

Ex Nihilo

“Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing.” – Billy Preston

“We believe in nothing, Lebowski!” – Uli Kunkel a/k/a Karl Hungus

Effective communication, the sharing of ideas, requires common premises. The words we use must mean the same thing. It has become clear over the course of the last year (and more) that there are distinct groups in America where meanings and ideas are shared only within the group. It could just be that America is a big enough country that shared beliefs are not really possible. It could be that all sources have become so cynical and biased that nothing at all can be believed. Looking at today’s situation through a historical perspective sheds some light. What we are seeing today is an echo of one of the driving factors behind the depths of the 20th Century: Nihilism. This is not the simple lack of beliefs, but is is the active belief in Nothing. The belief that nothing can be believed. I’ll explain.

The beginning of the 20th Century was one of the most optimistic times in all of human history. It was right in the midst of the Second Industrial Revolution. The First Industrial Revolution is the one most people know of; think steam power, steel, factories, automation, etc. The Second Industrial Revolution was more of a scientific revolution. The advances were in chemistry, medicine, public health, communication, and transportation. The world got a lot smaller and international trade and communications networks spanned the globe. Many, if not most, people believed that this made war a thing of the past. No rational actor would risk seeing this whole new world thrown away. Yeah, well…

The age of advancement ended abruptly in 1914, with the onset of the age of machine guns, high explosives, mass mobilization, and chemical weapons. When the Great War swept its scythe across Europe, it cut down not just flesh and bone, it cut down belief. The old systems of monarchy, empire, and democracy were exposed as enthusiastic butchers of men. Where then was the legitimacy of politics, parties, and theory? As if to show contempt for man’s weak efforts at annihilation, the Spanish Flu then dwarfed the most savage war in human history. After a war killing roughly 68 million people, the plague killed up to an additional 100 million by some estimates. What place was there for religion in a world like this? How could anyone believe in progress or the goodwill of mankind, in civilization or even capital “G” Good? No, these concepts blew away with the wisps of chlorine smoke and miasmic airs. Thereupon followed the Great Crash and the Great Depression, and revolution.

With kings, emperors, parliaments, and popes dragged into the grinder, where would people turn for meaning? Who would provide the basic protections expected of a government, and should those protections in fact even be expected? Inevitably, in this desperate scramble for meaning, there were some, even many, who came to the completely logical conclusion that there is no meaning. A search for something more than the basic physical fact of existence is time wasted. And so, as the philosopher and author Albert Camus points out in his work The Rebel, two main branches of Nihilism grew into power.

The first branch posited that, if there was no guarantee of divine reward and no legitimate morals, the only reasonable act is to provide for man’s physical needs, here and now. Perfect equality, perfect dignity, bread and peace; these could be had in the fulfillment of the Communist Utopia.

The second branch theorized that if all beliefs are equally meaningless, but by definition equal, then the only reasonable thing to do is to make sure that their group’s chosen system is victorious over others. One can willingly believe something handed to him by others, or he can dominate and make them live by his. Groups can be masters or slaves. And so the only thing in the world with meaning is power. Unqualified, bare power, without reference to any possible justification. It is possible to conquer, and therefore one must conquer. The only acceptable response to objective facts or morals is utter contempt. Fascism and Nazism were the fruit of this branch.

Are we this bad today? Mark Twain is often credited with saying “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” Lets keep in mind that there were only 15 years between WWI ending the German Empire at the absolute height of culture and civilization in 1918, and Hitler coming to power in 1933. The Romanovs ruled Russia for 300 years, a republic replaced them in the first Russian revolution in 1917, which was then followed by the Bolshevik revolution only eight months later. Things can stay pretty good or at least not that bad for a very long time, but once that spell is broken its a race to the bottom. Things get dark…fast.

There has been a long standing belief among Americans, not all but most, that America was an exceptional place – this shining example for the rest of the world, the beacon of hope for the oppressed, land of opportunity, refuge of liberty. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military victory over Saddam Hussein in 1991, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1992; America was at the top of its game. The great malaise that came after the assassinations of the 1960s, Vietnam, and economic stagnation, which Jimmy Carter so memorably and ineptly referred to, was gone. In the 1990s NATO expanded, communist countries turned into democracies, the economy boomed, the internet was born. By September 11, 2001 America was at the pinnacle, undisputed and without even a competitor. The pendulum had swung as far as it could in one direction, and slowly began its return.

In 2000-2001 we had the first shocks in the economic market with the internet bubble pop. In 2003 we invaded Iraq with misguided enthusiasm for spreading democracy into the heart of the Middle East. Of course, the basis of ending the threat of WMD was found to be faulty, but there were two other ringing strikes against American dominance. First, we found that using the US military did not result in an automatic win, and second that people around the world did not automatically default to democracy when the tyrants were removed. The civil war in Iraq caused a power vacuum rather than a burgeoning democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and this was exploited by Iran and Russia to expand their own power. The real estate market crash from 2005-2008, followed by the stock market crash which only bottomed in March 2009. The bailout and recovery that followed was notable for being one sided. If you were able to transition wealth into stocks at that time, you did very well; if you were some schlub that lost his job, you were SOL. The stock market has continued to rise, but many are left behind. A few years later the Arab Spring made it look like the democratic wave was just a delayed affect, and that the change was coming. This quickly petered out into business as usual. Throughout this time American politics have become more and more divided for reasons I would be happy to discuss but don’t have the space here.

All of these incidents, events, and trends have served to undermine not just faith in America as it now stands, but in the basics of discourse. The government cannot be trusted to provide for the needs of the people. Any politician cannot be believed at any time because they are assumed to be perfectly cynical actors. The idea of objectivity is discarded as impossible, and therefore any media outlet of any kind cannot be trusted.

When nothing can be trusted, and nothing can be believed, this does two things. It serves as justification for any belief – we’re all entitled to our own opinion, and so when all sources are equally compromised I am justified in choosing the ones I like, without reference to the underlying truth of the matter because, after all, who can really know the truth. In fact, if all beliefs are equally unreliable, then the only way to be truly non-partisan and unbiased is to have no belief at all. To simply align yourself with what is safe in your group. If all politicians are one as bad as the other, then it doesn’t matter if I support a terrible person, because any alternative is just as bad. The actor is absolved of responsibility for his choice. Morals become meaningless except so far as the image of them serves as a kind of loyalty test – do you believe what we believe, if so you can be trusted, if not you’re a danger. Questioning the group’s beliefs is impure and dangerous and needs cleansing. The mere existence of an objective truth, independent of belief, becomes evidence of an enemy, which justifies taking more and more assertive action.

When I argue in favor of dismissing suspicion as proof, and of believing only what is shown by evidence, I have no pretension that I will change anyone’s mind. Minds are made up. I think that if things are going to change, and the pendulum is to be brought back in the right direction, the radical solution necessary at this point is public statements of loyalty to objective truth. Pay no attention to the party you’re registered with. Refuse to agree to disagree. Do not accept accusations as proofs. The alternative is not just as good.

People will call you biased, arrogant, naive; they’ll even say you hate your country. Do I believe that people will get through this dark time without it getting darker? I see no historical evidence that people can, will, or even want to stand by truth rather than their group. But maybe America is the exception.

Deep Dive

This week the New York Post published an article stating that “smoking gun” emails confirm that Hunter Biden introduced a high officer of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil company he was on the board of, to his father, then sitting Vice President Joe Biden. The article notes that Burisma had been under investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor general, and that Biden demanded that the prosecutor be replaced. I had a recent conversation with a conservative friend of mine in which he wondered suggestively why the “leftist” media wasn’t running with the story, but that alternately they would run with the story about Trump allegedly insulting US veterans and casualties. It occurred to me that one of the basic problems in this discussion is that very few people know anything about Burisma, what either of the Bidens’ involvement was, or what the supposed scandal was. Admittedly, the reporting by the Post could be true – Hunter was a director of Burisma, Burisma was under investigation by the Ukrainian government, Biden did demand the replacement of the prosecutor. The one detail here in question is whether or not Hunter made an introduction and set up a meeting (I’ll explain below). If these are true, then something obviously smells funny, right?

The Post reporting may be true, but it is drastically incomplete, and is a great example of how disinformation is typically built on a small number of truths followed by insinuation rather than proof. In order to be as straight-forward and clear as possible, I’m going to start with a timeline of events in Ukraine with some basic explanations, then make some comments about sources. I won’t necessarily give you my conclusion, I’ll give you the info you need to come to your own.

First, a ludicrously simplified explanation of the situation in Ukraine. Ukraine has always been intimately involved in the history and identity of Russia, going all the way back to medieval times. The Ukraine was of course a part of the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviet Union it gained independence, but was always in the shadow of its more powerful neighbor. By the early 2000s, Ukraine independence was more or less secure, but there was a continuing struggle between those that were pro-West and wanted to make Ukraine a strong democracy aligned with Europe, and those that were pro-Russia. In 2004, corruption, voter intimidation, and fraud helped by Russian intelligence resulted in an election victory for Viktor Yanukovich (pro-Russian) over Viktor Yushchenko (pro-EU). Massive protests and civilian resistance (known as the Orange Revolution) caused the Ukrainian Supreme Court to investigate and find that Yushchenko actually won, and he became president. Putin promptly ordered his assassination and an attempt was made with poison, resulting his extreme facial scarring, but Yushchenko lived and stayed president. In the next election Yanukovich won and began to reverse all of the democratic and pro-EU reforms Yushchenko had been putting into effect. In November 2013 there was another round of popular uprisings (known as the Maidan Revolution after the square in Kiev where they took place) which succeeded in removing Yanukovich in February of 2014. He fled to Russian and asked for assistance. In March and April 2014 the Russian military invaded the Crimea region of the Ukraine and annexed it, and invaded the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, where the war still goes on today. The Ukraine government deals with constant Russian interference, sometimes they have the support of the United States. In 2014 Obama/Biden administration is in power. This sets the stage.

In April of 2014 Hunter Biden is brought into Burisma, the largest oil and natural gas extraction company in the Ukraine. Burisma had been founded in 2002 by Mykola Zlochevskiy, a former cabinet minister and ally of the pro-Russian Yanukovich.

May 12, 2014 – Burisma press release states that Hunter was brought on to advise their legal unit and assist in their dealings with international organizations. They note his experience as a partner with the New York based law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and his role as founder and managing partner of the investment advisory firm Rosemont Seneca Partners.

That same day is the first alleged email quoted in the Post article from Vadym Pozhansky, the number three officer of Burisma. In it he asks Hunter how they might use “his influence” to address what they feel is a politically motivated investigation, ie they feel that the incoming pro-western Petro Poroschenko government prosecutors would target them because the head of Burisma was a pro-Russian Yanukovich ally. There is no investigation or prosecution of Burisma ongoing at the time, they are afraid that it will happen. Hunter responds by asking them “what are the formal (if any) accusations being made against Burisma? Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” So the board member of Burisma responsible for providing legal advice and influencing international organizations is asked how he might use influence to combat fraudulent allegations, and asks the officers what specific legal accusation are being made and by whom. (Smoking gun?)

June 7, 2014 – Petro Poroschenko, supported by Obama/Biden against the pro-Russian candidate, becomes president. On June 19, not even two weeks in, Poroschenko appoints Vitaly Yurema, former law enforcement officer, as prosecutor general to crack down on corruption. He immediately opens an investigation of Zlochevskiy, the pro-Russian founder of Burisma, regarding alleged financial misdeeds dating from 2002-2012.

October 14, 2014 – Seeing that corruption in Ukraine is a direct threat to a functioning democracy, Obama makes Biden the point-man to pressure the Ukraine government to pursue anti-corruption efforts as aggressively as possible. Ukraine creates the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). To keep the pressure on, the US tied ongoing financial aid to funding NABU.

February 3, 2015 – George Kent, the lead anti-corruption official for the State Department, temporarily assigned to the Embassy in Kiev, lays into Yerema and the prosecutor’s office for NOT pursuing the case against Zlochevskiy, which has stayed dormant for some time. He strongly suggests that someone has taken a bribe. (It being common through several Ukrainian administrations for prosecutors to open a case against a company, take a bribe, then close the case).

February 13, 2015 – Yerema is sacked and replaced in the prosecutor general position by Viktor Shokin.

April 17, 2015 – Alleged email in Post article, again from Vadym Pozhorsky, number 3 at Burisma to Hunter, saying thank you for an introduction to his father. Neither the official Vice Presidential records, nor the records of the lead Ukraine adviser Mike Carpenter, show any such meeting, and both have denied that any such meeting happened. Biden was in fact in Ukraine to meet with the new government and stress the need for anti-corruption efforts.

September 24, 2015 – The new US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, continuing the pressure of the last year and more, gives a speech denouncing the prosecutor general’s office for stopping anti-corruption investigations, including the one into Burisma. He specifically says that the officials in charge of stopping the investigation be removed.

In the Fall of 2015, Biden and other leaders from the EU demand the removal of Viktor Shokin for not prosecuting anti-corruption cases, including Zlochevskiy/Burisma.

December 8, 2015 – Biden travels to Ukraine and gives a speech to Ukrainian parliament demanding that they step up anti-corruption efforts. With some aid money pending, Biden had discussions with the president and government officials after his speech. As quoted in the Post article Biden says “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

February 11, 2016 – Biden spoke to Ukraine president Poroschenko over the phone and demanded further anti-corruption action. Specifically calls for Shokin to be removed.

Throughout this time from 2014 the investigation into Burisma had lain dormant, and had not been pursued.

February 16, 2016 – Shokin is removed.

April 14, 2016 – Biden calls Poroschenko to demand the appointment of a new prosecutor to replace Shokin and pick up his investigations and prosecutions.

May 12, 2016 – Yuriy Lutsenko appointed as the new prosecutor general. The investigation into Burisma is reopened and finally pursued. In 2017 the government closes its investigation reporting that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute anything.

Phew, ok thats a lot. But it makes clear, as Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate Daria Kaleniuk says, Shokin was fired for NOT pursuing the investigation into Burisma, among others. It shows consistent effort by Biden for over two years to that end.

Anyway, some final comments on sources. The news today requires a critical reading. First, the Post does not have the emails they refer to or the hard drive it was allegedly on, they have photos of the emails off of someone’s screen that were provided by Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon. Who’s screen were they on, Giuliani’s or Bannon’s? Hunter has a work laptop that contains evidence of his and Burisma’s corruption, but when it has some kind of technical problem, instead of bringing it to the Burisma IT department, he brings it to some random computer repair shop in Delaware? Despite containing legal advice on criminal proceedings for the largest oil company in the Ukraine, it apparently does not have any security features on it, so that the computer repair guy can just bring up the emails and take some pictures? A computer repair shop gets a computer from the Vice President’s son, but doesn’t just repair it, they bring up sensitive documents, take pictures, and give them to Rudy Giuliani? Hunter’s computer is dropped off in April 2019, but computer guy does’t give this evidence to Giuliani until two weeks before the election? The Post article states flat out that the computer guy can’t even confirm that Hunter Biden was the customer. The Post apparently asked why he thought it belonged to Hunter Biden. Does he say “Because I have this invoice/work order signed by Hunter”, “Because I have this credit card receipt signed by Hunter”, “Because I have this payment coming from some company called Burisma”, or just “Because its got a bunch of Hunter’s emails on it”? No, he says, well even though the laptop’s gone I remember that it had a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it. Nevermind the question, if corruption is so prevalent with the Ukraine prosecutor’s office, and there was actual corruption at Burisma, why would they try to use Hunter to influence Joe Biden instead of just paying the bribe? Much simpler and less danger of it backfiring into an international incident.

Let me also point out that after the release of this story, the FBI began an investigation into whether or not it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, which it almost certainly is. James Clapper commented that it fits with Russian trade-craft perfectly. Before and after Rudy went to the Ukraine, announcing ahead of time that he was looking for dirt on Hunter, Trump was warned on August 7, 2020 by William Evanina, Director of the National Counter-Intelligence and Security Center, among other intelligence community sources, that Giuliani was being targeted by Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, as part of their broader effort to influence the 2020 election. Trump was advised that Giuliani’s source was a Andriy Derkatch, a member of the Ukrainian parliament with known Russian intelligence ties. This was obviously disregarded.

Sorry, I said at the beginning I wasn’t going to give my opinion and let you decide. This story insults the intelligence of any reasonable person who has the publicly available information. Stories and sources like the Post, Giuliani, Bannon, and the like depend on you not being willing to put in the effort to find the info. Stories about the Biden’s being allegedly involved in corruption in the Ukraine are Steve Bannon’s way of calling you stupid. You don’t have to let him get away with it.

Work In Progress

“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation. With a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“One of the tendencies of democracy, which Plato and other antidemocrats warned against a long time ago, was the danger that rhetoric would displace or at least overshadow epistemology; that is, the temptation to allow the problem of persuasion to overshadow the problem of knowledge. Democratic societies tend to become more concerned with what people believe than with what is true, to become more concerned with credibility than with truth. All these problems become accentuated in a large-scale democracy like ours, which possesses the apparatus of modern industry. And the problems are accentuated still further by literacy, by instantaneous communication, and by the daily plague of words and images.”

– Daniel Boorstin, written in 1974

One of the oddities of American culture, as pointed out by Daniel Boorstin, one of the great historians of US History and long-time Librarian of Congress, is that America does not have a political theory, but Americans think that we do. If I had to guess, I think if you asked any American off the street what the true American political theory is, they would say one of three things – Top two would be “democracy” or “freedom” and a distant third would be “capitalism”. Of course, none of these actually are political theories. Democracy is a system for assigning governing authority, capitalism is a system for assigning resources, and freedom is a vague and usually undefined feeling. But why is democracy an ideal system? Why is capitalism so good? What is freedom? I think most people would be hard pressed to answer these questions.

In Europe and in other places of the world, huge amounts of thought, writing, and exchange of ideas has been spent on trying to figure out questions like this, going all the way back to ancient Greece. This amount of time and argument has led others to be much more laid back regarding their political systems. They can be seen as systems only, as intellectual traditions, without the baggage of ideology. Overseas, if a country is a democracy and wants to have some aspects of a socialist economy, then what’s the big deal, whatever works, right?

Weirdly, Americans see themselves as more practical, while in reality they are much more idealistic. The democratic tradition in America goes back to the physical realities of our earliest colonial beginnings. When it takes three months to cross the Atlantic, we can’t ask the King what to do about every little thing. But if we’re going to decide issues for ourselves, why should I listen to the guy I just watched puking over the side of the Mayflower for the last three months? He has no authority. There’s enough land to head out and do my own thing, but unless I want to starve or get killed, I have to work with these people. So we all agree, when there’s a question about what to do, we put it up for a vote. For day to day things someone needs to be in charge, who’s it going to be? Put it up for a vote. This gives legitimacy to the local government – if everyone agrees that voting is going to decide something, then you can’t question it later. Democracy by default, without anyone ever really thinking about why.

How about religious freedom? Well trading for things all the way back to England takes too long, but the colonies are big enough to trade with each other and satisfy most needs. But Puritans have their own laws in Massachusetts, Baptists have theirs in Rhode Island, protestant Dutch in New York(Amsterdam), Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, Anglicans in Virginia, and Presbyterians in the Carolinas. Each colony had their own laws and religions and so all were basically forced by necessity to agree to not mess with each other’s people. Religious freedom by default. No one argued why this was a good thing (except maybe Roger Williams), it was just necessary, and worked.

While I’ve noted here that most Americans seem to not want to get into theory and philosophy, they also don’t like to believe that what makes America the “exceptional country” is nothing much; we just kinda got dropped off in the woods and figured it out. And so to avoid this, a kind of American mythology has grown around the founding – the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution. These have become something like holy relics that must be believed in and cannot be questioned. But by refusing to think about them we deprive ourselves of what guidance the Founding Fathers did provide.

We imagine that the founders equipped us from the nation’s birth with a perfect and complete political theory. An example of this today is constitutional fundamentalists, who believe that the solution to America’s problems is going back to the original intent of the founders in the constitution. However, this idea is disputed by the founder’s own writings, such as the quote I reference above. And capitalism didn’t exist at the time of the founding, the Industrial Revolution hadn’t even happened yet.

Many believe that in this perfect system, American values are implicit. There is a belief that a true American Way of Life will lead inevitably to a true American Way of Thought. You must believe the same things that “we” do or you must not be a true American. There is a sense of the Founding Fathers being almost contemporaries, as somehow real even in today’s society.

In reality, the founders designed a system which has been hugely changed many times in order to account for changing technology, changing values, changing lives. There has never been any comprehensive discussion of what America stands for, or what it is trying to achieve, let alone whether or not the current system comes close to achieving it. If you ask someone what is great about America, I would expect that a lot of people would be offended. Shouldn’t it be obvious? If you don’t know why America is great, you must not be a real American.

If American political thought is so vague, so is the definition of heresy. When there has been no effort to define American greatness, there is a vacuum that is filled by each group, or even each individual, making the determination of what is truly American, and therefore what is un-American. I blame Thomas Jefferson for some of this – “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Yeah, but why don’t we just go ahead and try to nail them down anyway. Let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page.

Despite the vagueness of American historical and political thought, there is a common belief going around that since the founders gave us a perfect system, and it is self-evident that democracy and capitalism are without question superior to everything else, all we need to do is to somehow live up to the original plan. That we’ve lost an inexplicable something, some mythical ancient values that will solve the problems of the present, and thus Make America Great Again.

Rather, even a cursory study of early US history will find that the Founding Fathers were very unsure of themselves. The best of them worried constantly that they were doing the right things, and went to strenuous efforts to create a system that could be changed for the changing times. And it was expected that future generations would not be bound by their decisions. If the founding was great, its the system of flexible and adaptable government that was intended to perpetuate the greatness. Historically it has been the case that the most changeable times have been our greatest, and the times of ideological hardening have been the low points.

Unfortunately, the intentional avoidance of political philosophy and questioning of our system, has led to a situation where history is the only basis for legitimacy. The problem here is that people are bad at history, and for the most part don’t even really know what it is. History is the practice of critically questioning the past to find truth. Mandatory belief in assumed truth leads only to replacing true greatness with symbolic greatness – statues, flags, songs, pledges.

To the founders, American greatness was aspirational. It is always in the future, to be worked toward, never in the past. The founders were philosophers, and if we truly want to live up to their vision, then we must question everything, just as they did.

Do you?

If you’re interested in this, check out The Americans by Daniel Boorstin.

Well, What Do You Know?

How do we know things? How can we tell what is a fact? In order for people to communicate with each other in some kind of reasonable way, there must at least be agreement on what an objective fact is. Think of some of the political discussions you’ve had or seen lately, and you will likely agree that this is a question that should concern people, even if you think its everyone else that needs to get their facts straight.

Epistemology is the philosophical study of the nature of knowledge. If you feel yourself zoning out just pretend you didn’t read that part. People today seem to generally believe that they dislike philosophy because it is supposedly abstract and useless in today’s world. Having decided that they are not interested in philosophy, people then do not try to understand what it is, and therefore do not realize that they are constantly using it in their lives. Do you believe that there are such things as Good and Bad? Do you believe that there are such things as Right and Wrong? How do you decide what is important versus what is not important? None of these questions can be answered with any scientific certainty and so people have to make value judgments based on their personal philosophy. Since people generally refuse to think about this, it is typically done very sloppily.

Today we have a general idea that scientific knowledge is the only basis for concrete fact. What you can put your hands on. What you can “prove”. This system is called Empiricism, the concentration on measurement and observation as a basis for knowledge. But this only goes back a few hundred years. Throughout history there have been numerous ways for people to “know” things about the world, that have been more or less legitimate in their times. There has been theological truth which is revealed to us through some kind of divine process. There has been custom and tradition, the idea that things are the way they are because they have always been that way. Plato thought that there were inherent truths that existed independently of man, and which we could know through Reason. His student Aristotle disagreed and felt that the only real root of knowledge was sensory experience.

Today we have a difficult situation. Anything on the internet or social media cannot be relied on, video can be edited, documents can be doctored or gotten rid of, the media and everyone else for that matter is assumed to have a bias or agenda that they cannot think outside of. So how do we know what to believe? If everything is equally suspect, then any belief an individual chooses is equally justified. People believe whatever it is they prefer and see this as tantamount to holding an opinion they are entitled to.

This, to be honest, is Nihilism; the belief that facts are relative, and that any position held on any given question is equal to any other. Moral questions become nothing more than cultural loyalty tests. Truth, today, is difficult to know, but not impossible. STEM education may get you a job, but the humanities teach you to have humanity, history and philosophy teach you to use reason and logic. These have been discounted in our society for a long time now.

WWI destroyed Western Civilization’s faith in the ability to find truth. WWII and the Holocaust reminded us what the world is like without it. I’m talking here about big “C” Civilization. Civilization is knowing that there is a truth, and that it can be known, and that those opposed to it are wrong. It’s being inside the circle of firelight as opposed to outside in the dark. Civilization respects truth, as opposed to barbarism where only strength and winning are valued.

Next time you’re having a conversation about current events or something in the news, listen to the other person and to yourself. Do you “agree to disagree”. Is there a mutual feeling that each of you is entitled to believe whatever you believe? Is there mutual doubt that either of you can even “know” what is true?

There is an objective truth. It can be known, with effort and thought. An “opinion” that is opposed to the truth is not an “opinion”, it is incorrect. The way this makes you feel is irrelevant.

If you want to read about the situations this problem can lead to, check out The Rebel by Albert Camus

Labor Day

Enjoying your long weekend? I’ve been hearing a lot lately on TV and in private conversations regarding the need to preserve our history, our heritage some call it. So I’m sure everyone is reflecting on the meaning of the Labor Day holiday. No? Well allow me to say a few words.

Labor Day became a federal holiday in 1894. By that time America had developed and industrialized, but laws governing labor had not kept pace. Working hours, conditions, wages and wage equality, child labor, and many other issues weighed heavily on the American industrial worker, what we would call today blue collar workers. Factory owners, mill owners, mine owners, railroad owners, all of these could basically do whatever they wanted and it was seen as only natural for a free market capitalist economy. If they owned the factory, who has the right to put any kind of limit at all on the way they run the place?

But over time, due primarily to the efforts of organized labor, consciousness of these problems, particularly workplace safety, became widespread. Organized demonstration across the country made more Americans aware of the situation. Support in public opinion grew, and laws were changed. These activities, and the government response to them was not always, or even usually, non-violent. Strikes and demonstrations were most often met with resistance from owners and managers. Owners and managers were typically involved in politics, knowing politicians socially and supporting political machines and local law enforcement. This caused police and government response to side, almost exclusively, with capital. The means for disrupting the labor movement included financial penalties for anyone taking part, the hiring of “private investigators” like the Pinkertons who could be armed, company police forces, the hiring of goon squads of local criminals to rough up demonstrators, the use of company and police infiltrators to subvert labor organizations, police actions, and ultimately calling out the National Guard and military. Owners and politicians that stood to benefit would then use the inevitable violence to paint the labor organizations as anti-American, anti-police, communists, anarchists, immigrants, and foreign/outside agitators only interested in wanton property destruction and the undermining of the American way.

I’ll run through a few of the notable events, though this is not even close to exhaustive.

1886 Haymarket Affair in Chicago – The Knights of Labor, an organization that had explicitly rejected socialism and anarchism (not automatic at this point) was conducting a peaceful demonstration outside of the McCormick Harvesting Machine plant demanding an 8-hour workday. For several days the ownership of the plant had used hired Pinkerton agents to try to break up the demonstration by means including firing into the crowd with police taking no action. On May 3, while one of the organizers was making a speech, the police themselves fired on the crowd killing two workers. The next day turned violent as well, with fighting between workers and police, culminating an an unknown party setting of a bomb in the middle of the crowd. Of the workers that were rounded up and arrested by police, six were charged with murder, and despite no evidence of having any involvement with the violence, they were sentenced to death.

1892 Homestead steel worker strike – Pinkertons hired by ownership attacked workers were military weapons including machine guns. When the workers set up fortifications and defended themselves with personal weapons such as Winchester rifles, the state militia was called in to support the Pinkertons and crushed the workers. Needless to say no one involved with the ownership forces was charged with anything.

1894 Pullman Railroad strikes against a reduction in wages. 30 workers killed

1912 Bread and Roses Strike – In Lawrence, MA workers from the Washington Mills, American Woolen Company (maybe you’ve seen the footbridge on Canal Street going up toward Lawrence Street, near the current courthouse and going toward the Claddaugh) struck when a portion of the mill collapsed. They demanded better working conditions. Massachusetts called in the National Guard, which ended up clearing crowds at bayonet point. The Guard also enforced what would really amount to almost a siege, keeping people from sending their children out of town so that there was more pressure on the demonstrators. Even considering the deaths by bayonet of several strikers, the siege in particular drew national attention and turned public opinion against the owners and the Guard, who were seen as using military tactics to target women and children.

Striking workers facing the bayonets of the Massachusetts National Guard in Lawrence, MA 1912

Over the years, labor organizations around the country chose a universal date to parade rather than demonstrating for specific causes. This showed people the peaceful nature of the movement and allowed reasonable debate of what today we consider obvious reasonable demands. Basically every right we enjoy as employees today, are founded on these efforts.

So what do we learn? In America, it seems a tempting position to believe that the Founding Fathers handed down to us a perfect system, and we only need to live up to it. That people who criticize or want to change it, must be anti-American, or anti-authority. A study of American history will dispute this in short order. From time to time, a segment of American society has called for changes in order to find a greater expression of equality, for greater responsiveness by law enforcement to the needs of the public rather than the needs of the current power structure, or simply that rights that are already recognized as universal be enforced. These have been met, every single time, by resistance from those who already enjoy the rights that are being demanded. Without exception, people seeking rights are painted as selfish, greedy, in favor of anarchy and chaos, traitors or at least the willing dupes of foreign powers or outside agitators, and haters of Capitalism, America and good old law and order.

So does Labor Day really recognize a disruptive, subversive element in American society? Are contemporaries, who now find themselves in the mold of those criticizing systemic resistance to universal rights, just hating their country? Should they go someplace else if they think there’s someplace better? Of course not.

Rather, they’re continuing the one true American theme – refusal to accept anything less that the self-evident rights that are promised in the foundation of the country. Demanding rights that are due to any human being is the highest patriotism for an American. Thats why it is celebrated today, and why it will be in the future.

Sending out an S.O.S.

Most people you speak with probably have a very strong opinion regarding defunding the police, either for or against. Most of those same people don’t know what it is. And I speak from my own experience. A few months ago when I first heard the term I thought I knew what it meant, and I had an immediate negative gut reaction.  Getting rid of the police? What a dumb idea! What about actual crimes? Sure, there is an undeniable problem with police being disproportionately violent against African-Americans, but problems with a system should be solved rather than throwing out the whole system.

Well, I thought those things because I didn’t know what I was talking about. And I feel like I’m usually pretty informed on stuff like this so I felt kinda stupid. So I decided to do some research and break my small-child-induced silence to help everyone else with something quick to get a little info.

First I’ll lay down the basis of the problem with some facts from the National Institute of Health and the US Census.

-The largest ethnicity in the US is obviously White/Caucasian with 77%. African-American is in 3rd place, after Hispanic/Latino, with 13.4%. All other things being equal, one would expect to see that violent police actions would involve these groups at something approaching those percentages.

-The percentages of police shootings involving White people is 52%, involving African-Americans it is 32%. Police actions against African-Americans are 2.8 times more likely to be fatal than those against Whites. (More shots fired? More officers on the scene?)

-The vast majority of police shootings are legitimate uses of force against someone that is armed and presenting a danger to other citizens or the police. However, the percentages of cases where deadly force is used against unarmed people are 14.8% for African-Americans vs 9.4% for Whites.

While the point of this post is not to debate the reasons for this disparity, (and I honestly haven’t researched the subject), my own understanding is that police are more likely to be called out to or be patrolling high crime areas and where gangs/drug activity is common, police officers are more likely to go into such a situation feeling that it is going to be dangerous, high crime/high drug/gang areas are more likely to be poor areas, poor areas are disproportionately African-American. These factors alone, outside of any personal biases, is enough to explain a higher rate of violence with respect to African-Americans. I don’t believe that they are the only factors, but no need to blow up the whole post just yet. Suffice it to say that the statistics noted above are correct and authoritative.

There are two separate issues now being convoluted in “public debate”: Defunding the police, and abolishing the police. My understanding is that it is a matter of degree, though a very meaningful matter. Defunding police means reducing the budgets of police departments, and redirecting that money to social services addressing problems that would normally result in police being dispatched. Abolition is what it sounds like, doing away with the police and relying entirely on social services and community efforts. There is absolutely no way to give these arguments the space they call for here. I am going to talk about defunding the police, but if you want to find out more about the argument in favor of abolishing the police, there is a great article in The Atlantic called “How I Became a Police Abolitionist” by Derecka Purnell, a human rights attorney in Washington DC.

I will mention that in that article, the author makes excellent point, right off the bat – that dismissing those calling for abolition/defunding/police reform as not caring about the victims, ignores the fact that in the vast majority of cases they are the victims; not just of police violence, but of the incidents that generate the police calls in the first place. Where are 911 calls for home invasions, burglary, assault, shootings, and other violent crime more likely to originate than in the very high crime areas where the responses are more likely to go wrong? (Despite any commercials you may have seen featuring scared old white ladies in the suburbs) Unfortunately, a side-effect of responding to a high-crime situation like this in a democracy is that voters demand to see action, which ends up being the traditional politician that is “tough on crime”, whether or not that works. Police are visible, arrests are touted on the news, people can take credit. But the conditions that lead to high crime cannot be addressed by police actions; conditions such as poverty, inequality, mental health, homelessness, addiction, etc. Again, items for a future post.

And that is the basis of the effort to defund the police. The most effective way to reduce police related violence, is to reduce the number of responses police make into situations that could be dangerous. A Department of Justice study found that 9 out of 10 calls to 911 are for nonviolent incidents. I would submit that we do not need armed police to respond to these, and that even some dangerous situations do not call for an immediate police presence. In many cities, activists are creating alternatives to 911 and to police, such as support systems for victims of domestic abuse, educational initiatives, work programs, and community de-escalation volunteers. Many situations could be dealt with through these methods and avoid the dangerous situations where police officers would be necessary. A reduced police force would still be available if the community efforts are not up to any specific situation.

Defunding simply reduces the size and scope of what police are expected to do. From my research, it seems that many police already feel that they are expected to do too much, and things that they haven’t been trained for, such as dealing with mental health situations or the homeless, both of which are clear social issues that usually result in police activity. Officers want to be able to focus on “real” police work. (I’m not trying to speak for police officers here, this is just what my research has shown.) Other programs would be more qualified and more effective in dealing with these social issues.

Now obviously this focus on effectively addressing social issues is more likely to appeal to those with a liberal slant. But this is just the surface. Existing defunding efforts, according to a Brookings Institution study, focus on fiscal responsibility and a market driven approach to the use of tax payer money. When tax paying citizens hand their money over to the government (federal or local), the government owes a duty to make sure that money is being spent efficiently and effectively. With social programs instead of a police presence, the problems that are supposed to be addressed can be, in a more cost-effective way and with greater results.

Some may be angry or disappointed that these arguments ignore the moral aspect of the issue. And that may be true. But I personally would be more concerned with the results. If the right thing is being done for the wrong reason, isn’t that still a good result? I’m sure when Dr. King led the boycott of the bus system in Montgomery, no one was under the impression that this would somehow cause all the white people to realize that segregation was a moral evil. The strategy was to hit the city in the budget, and maybe the result would be de-segregation of the bus system – ie a good result for the wrong reason.

And in any case, a joint study by the Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve (not exactly bastions of liberal activism) that lasted over 60 years, found no correlation between spending on law enforcement and crime rates. More or less spending doesn’t make the crime rate go up or down. This would indicate that the causes of crime are societal and that mere deterrence doesn’t work.

So maybe the focus on police feels like blame and is leading to automatic defensive responses? Really the focus should be on problems that we all agree are facing society, but which somehow through tradition and the lack of other options have just been fobbed off on police, and we inappropriately expect solutions. Instead of defunding the police we should call it something lame that people won’t get worked up about, like “re-allocating funds in order to more cost-effectively address policy priorities”.

But seriously don’t even get me started on construction details. Wow, do not even get me started.

Borders

“[The migrant caravan] is a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.”  – Jeff Sessions

“Make no mistake about it; These families – often women and small children – are victims. They’re victims of open border advocates who support and encourage them to take a long and dangerous trip.” – Mike Pence

This week the “migrant caravan” – a large group of families from Central American countries totaling roughly 1000 people – reached the US border to request entry. Fox News described this group as a migrant “army” that threatens our border, a sentiment that is clearly shared by the administration. What is not mentioned is that this is a yearly occurrence. A group of asylum seekers has come to the US border from Central America every spring since 2008, but in our current political environment this is suddenly a big deal, though in terms of immigration to the US, 1000 people is nothing. They come mostly from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and are seeking asylum from political violence in their countries. It is so violent in their own countries that they are willing to walk a hundreds miles, carrying kids and all their belongings, then live in a tent in Tijuana indefinitely, for the chance of making a new life in the US. They don’t try to sneak across the border, they walk right up to the border guard stations and report themselves and fill out the appropriate paperwork and wait. They travel in a large group for safety (consider what chance a small family with a few kids and carrying all their worldly belongings would have walking through Tijuana).

But either way, I don’t want to debate whether or not this group of migrants is a dangerous threat or a shining example. I have always believed that people should not take their instinctual, gut reactions to specific events and then extrapolate their worldview from those. Rather, they should come to an understanding of what their individual values are, and then consider specific events through that prism. So in approaching this particular question, I would want to consider whether or not migration is a “human right”.  There seems to be some weight behind the view that migration is in fact a human right on the liberal side. On the other hand, most conservatives would likely consider the perceived security implications to be much more important.

Historically, there is no basis for migration being a human right. It has never been considered so throughout human history, and in fact extending past that into pre-history. It has always been true that groups of people, whether clans, tribes, or nation-states, defend their territory and resources against incursions by other groups. The first duty of governments, has always been defense of the population; and this has always been taken to mean primarily defense of the borders. The majority of the time this means military defense against an attack, but there are also many examples of defense against migrating populations. Throughout history, the migration of a large group into the territory of another has always led to chaos, violence and upheaval, and usually to one group dominating the other. Strictly defined borders and international law may be modern concepts, but the defensive impulse against outsiders is instinctive. Even animals do it.

If there is no doubt that there is at least a correlation between large amounts of migration and large amounts of social and political instability, often leading to violence, there is also no doubt that the defense of a group’s territory against others has always been legitimate, and still is. It is a recognized right, by every international law, for a country to control its borders and the flow of people and things in and out. It is even recognized to be a moral right, even duty. Migrants may be in a horrible situation, they may be escaping violence and persecution themselves. They have no certainty of safety, or of basic needs, in even the very short term. But there is still nothing wrong with a government putting the concerns of its own people first. Helping migrants is a choice.

So, legally, the US has no duty to accept immigrants into the country or to ensure their well-being outside of the country. Any moral duty extends only to the point that we have the ability to help and may choose not to. So what’s the big deal if Americans want to get really strict about letting people into the country? In my view, it is more about the identity of America and Americans, rather than a responsibility to others. Part of the American identity, in the minds of Americans and others in the world, has been the image of something that stands apart. I’ve heard many conservatives on TV and in person talk about America as the “exceptional country”. This seems to be a test of patriotism, something that must be believed without question (and without definition). It is something that personally I do believe, ie that America is an exceptional place, but I do question what it is that makes the US exceptional.

It seems to me that conservatives (not to pick on one “side”, its just very noticeable) seem to view American exceptionalism extremely simply and one-dimensionally, as being based primarily on military strength. But to me, this is no exception at all. All countries are judged on military strength, we just have more of it. To me, America is exceptional because we have always chosen to do exceptional things. The exception for America, is that it has a moral duty with respect to the rest of the world. Many people may see this as a soft liberal idea…well, too bad. Our history shows that it has always been a source of strength. A large part of America’s identity throughout its history has been as the Land of Opportunity, the Beacon of Liberty, the Last Refuge of Freedom. It was a place that people in other countries looked to as an example. We have, in the past, chosen to do the things that other countries don’t do.

It is a legitimate choice for the US to “defend” its borders, to accept or turn away as many immigrants as we see fit, and it would be fully legal, moral, and justified in almost every way. But would it be right for us? Should we just do what every other country does? In my opinion, the only way for America to remain the “exceptional” country, is to make the choices, and accept the challenges, that are exceptional.

Tell me what you think.

Cold Dead Hands

“The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited” – Sign at the city limits of Dodge City Kansas

“Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes” (A War of All Against All) – Thomas Hobbes

Let me begin by stating that the law, as it currently exists under the Constitution, allows for the legal ownership of guns. And therefore the burden is not on gun owners to explain or justify their decision to own guns. They are allowed to, and that’s it. The burden rather, is on the person that believes gun ownership should be made illegal or at least more strictly regulated to explain and justify the limitation of what is currently considered a right.

That being said, I believe that there is a reasonable argument in favor of stricter gun laws. This post is not going to be an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, well regulated militias and so forth, but more of an exercise in pursuing a thought through to its various conclusions.

First, the limitation of a freedom in favor of the public good is, and has always been, legitimate in a lawful society. For example, no one questions the freedom of speech, but we can also accept that libel or slander are out of bounds, along with speech that promotes violence. I personally feel like I am reasonable and responsible enough to decide when I might safely drive 80 or 90 miles per hour, but I can also accept that there are other people out there who may not be as reasonable as me. And so I accept that a speed limit is legitimate.  In the same way, I know many people who are responsible gun owners, but I also understand that there are irresponsible and unreasonable and dangerous gun owners out there (such as this week’s shooter). I’m not talking about people who get guns illegally, but people who get guns legally and use them inappropriately.

This paragraph brings up an inconsistency in an idea that is being debated right now that must be pointed out. The question is whether schools would be safer if teachers are armed and trained.  The basis of this proposition is that if a prospective school shooter knows that other people in the school have guns and may kill him, then it will dissuade him from going through with it. Deterrence assumes that the person being deterred is rational, and wants to avoid the threatened outcome. Many have pointed out that the people who do school shootings are obviously irrational, and likely mentally disturbed, and therefore the problem isn’t the availability of guns, but rather lies with the individual who committed the crime.  If this is the case, then armed teachers cannot act as a deterrent because the individual is either not capable of understanding the threat, or unwilling to avoid the outcome. It is a fact that most mass shooters have been suicidal, and therefore somewhat immune from deterrence. While this is an argument against the arming of teachers, it is also a larger concept – that the presence of armed individuals will not deter violent crime. I would submit, perhaps as only an opinion, that most violent criminals do not reach the decision to commit their crimes through a rational thought process.

The ideal “good guy with a gun” fails as a deterrent of crime, as it fails in addressing crimes in progress. We unfortunately saw this week that the presence of a number of armed sheriff’s deputies did not prevent the school shooting from happening, and did not stop it once it was in progress. All this aside from the question of the practical difficulty armed teachers (or any good guy with a gun scenario). Police often, if not always, arrive on the scene of a crime with imperfect information. In the case of a school shooting, they would likely know only that a shooting is in progress, not who is doing it, how many shooters there are, where they are, etc. On entering a school or any place with a shooter, a policy officer seeing an unknown subject with a gun out is likely to take immediate decisive action in the interest of protecting others and in his own self-defense.  If teachers are armed, I would propose that they would have to have some kind of very visible identification such as a uniform or badge.

This leads to the second point I have to address – the very common argument from gun owners that if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns. A few moments of thought will find that this is not true. If guns are illegal, then only criminals and police and other law enforcement will have guns. The idea that only criminals will have guns if they are made illegal ignores the fact that we have in our government structure provisions for the legitimate use of force. We do not live in a savage state of nature where without weapons we are left defenseless. In fact, a long accepted precept of government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In return for that allowance, it has the responsibility of ensuring safety of civilians to a reasonable standard. Whether or not law enforcement can do this is a question to be addressed both functionally, within the various agencies, and politically, by considering what powers and what resources we give them. If law enforcement is not doing the job to a communities satisfaction, then that community should consider who they have put in responsible positions and what resources they provide, rather than simply diffusing the duty of law enforcement to the citizenry. The idea that the average citizen needs firearms to defend himself presupposes a level of violence and anarchy that is simply not evident in today’s society.

If the question is whether we would be better of with no one but criminals and law enforcement having guns, or with everyone able to carry a firearm if they choose, we do not have to use our imagination to appreciate what that would be like. It was in fact the case, in an easily accessible historical space – the Old (Wild) West. There’s no stronger picture of personal freedom in the American experience than the cowboy out on the plains, taking care of his own simple needs, and taking no crap from anyone. However, the people that moved out west to “settle the frontier” and start new lives quickly realized what life would be like when everyone has guns…it sucks. When everyone has guns, they don’t rationally think through their daily activities and gauge actions vs. consequences. They do the same things that people without guns do – they get drunk, they get in fights, they have arguments over property, money, husbands and wives. But frontier towns often went without powerful and organized law enforcement, and so even those freedom-loving cowboys could agree that everyone would be better off if we agree not to carry our guns around town.  Dodge City Kansas, Deadwood South Dakota, Tombstone Arizona – they all had as one of their first laws a prohibition on firearms. The gunfight at the OK corral happened when the Earp brothers and Doc Holiday, hardly the image of over-sensitive liberals, attempted to enforce gun control laws. Some cowboys brought guns into town and the Earps/Holiday confronted them to confiscate them. The rest is (much-revised and glorified) history.

These are my thoughts. You will note that I don’t propose any solutions. I’m not giving an opinion on the NRA or the politicians that work with them. School shootings and the dysfunctions of our society are a larger question. I’m not against gun-ownership, in fact I enjoy recreational shooting and would consider ownership myself. But I am in favor of laws and restrictions that would put a great burden on gun-owners; restrictions strong enough to effectively reduce gun ownership overall.

I will, however, give my personal opinion on the statements made by Dana Loesch, the spokesperson for the NRA, this week. You can find the full quote online, or just by turning on the TV right now.  She stated that the media, the liberal boogeyman of the right, loves school shootings, noting that “crying white mothers” are ratings gold. This statement is obscene. I don’t mean dirty joke or bad word obscene. I mean that it is a statement not fit for civilized people. The assumption that people cannot react as human beings, that they can only experience feelings stemming from total self-interest, and that they can only act in accordance with those narrow and selfish concerns; this assumption is indicative of a supreme cynicism that is both a cause and effect of today’s dysfunction, and is the enemy of community. Until we can find a way back to a reasonable foundation for civilized interaction – that we all want similar things for our lives and our families, that we all feel similar things, and fear similar things – then we will confine ourselves to world where people are not, by nature, good. Is that the real world? You tell me.