October 7, 2014

If only

If people would just do what they're told, think of where we could be.

If people just did what they were told, think of where we would be.

September 22, 2014


From time to time, we get these newsletter-styled ads from a real estate company in Alexandria. This is a brilliant campaign. Assuage the influx of guilty, hand-wringing white-and-blue money by "having a conversation" about their preferences, take them through some meaningless statistics (they like data, AND articles for that matter) and then tell them, "Hey, you can't help that you're sophisticated. Is it really a coincidence that so many sophisticated people would be attracted to such a sophisticated place?"

Buy our homes and take heart, Young Pilgrims. Your savvy is surpassed only by your compassion-like signalling.

September 15, 2014

Topical drill down

I rejoined Facebook a few months ago. Lately, I'm reminded why I left.

It's nice that people have a voice online to discuss issues that have an impact on our lives, but the discussion often seems unproductive and combative. It's not that there's no point to talking about Ray Rice or Iraq or the elections, what bothers me is that the conversations are often driven by competing talking points pulled from particular articles, polls or statements to the media usually penned by someone with their own ax to grind. So we end up seeing threads on Facebook or elsewhere where people end up carrying water for someone else.

The issues can be important, but the deviations are often stretched to the point of being nonsensical. The Ray Rice story leads nicely into broad discussions of domestic violence, which can lead to discussions of the pressures placed on men and women, which can be discussed generally or in the context of race, which leads to discussions of the origins of those pressures (yay or nay: income inequality, privilege and the like), which naturally begs the question of what can be done, which is a great segue for politicians and lobbyists to step in with their policy recommendations, one way or another.

The gross brutality of Ray Rice is now about how politicians and activists can prevent all the things they propose led to that act - broad sociological factors, instead of a single action by a single mind - by spending other people's money.

So, by stimulating these discussions online, the publication in which the ideas originated gets traffic (which they are in dire need of), the NGOs get to construct pointed, topical fundraising campaigns and the politicians are given something to talk about and "act" on. I don't think this is brainwashing or some grand conspiracy. Some people like topical chatter, the publication caters to them, and the rest react subsequently, according to their need for relevance. The kickback for those who participate is twofold: we get to signal our brand of self-righteousness to whoever is reading, which in this virtual world, is a valuable commodity, and we get to determine who our friends are by where they fall into some contrived sociopolitical spectrum.

September 11, 2014

The triumph of political necessity

Benignly, the news tells us that last night the president “outlined his plan” for a long “engagement” with ISIL in Iraq and everywhere else, I suppose, riding the wave of outrage over the beheading of two journalists and our inherent fear of the Middle East and its actors. It seems, if the polls can be trusted, that only 15 percent of the country thinks we should stay out of it. I've seen enough swaggering “hang 'em high” posts on Facebook and other social media to give credence to it, if such a thing is possible. How fickle we are. How embedded our fear and the standard reactions to this fear. How easily the powerful can play on our emotions by promising the elimination of threats that never quite seem eliminated given time, and seem only to perpetuate and even increase the frequency and scale of conflict. Retaliation is Power's satellite; the orbit never decays unless acted on tangentially. We seem to lack those means. I continue to suspect, in this age, that people in power, by the very virtue of their pursuit of that power, are ill-equipped to administer the needs of any group of people at any level.

The Framers tried to limit that power. They tried to compartmentalize it, hoping that the plodding nature of their system would prevent unilateral actions by one person or a group of persons (see Wilson below). Their reasoning is available to us, fortunately. Here are a few snippets:

"...absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."
--Jon Jay, The Federalist #4 
"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
--James Madison, Political Observations 
"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."
--George Washington, from a letter to the governor of South Carolina regarding "offensive action" against the Creek nation 
"Some gentlemen were inclined to give this power to the President; but it was objected to, as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction."
From a summary of the debates over Article 1, Section 8 in South Carolina during the period of ratification of the federal constitution in 1787, written by Jonathan Elliot 
"Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided."
--Thomas Jefferson, as president in 1805, in a message to Congress 
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready, without cause, to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President, not the facts and proofs themselves, is to sway the judgment of Congress in declaring war... it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace, which is the greatest of their blessings."
--James Madison, from a letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 2nd, 1798 
"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it... while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #69 
"I do not mean, that, with an efficient government, we should mix with the commotions of Europe. No, Sir, we are happily removed from them, and are not obliged to throw ourselves into the scale with any. This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large;--this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives; from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion, that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war."
--James Wilson, from the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention

I realize that constitutional originalism is flawed from a legal standpoint. The Constitution has been amended and reinterpreted in courts and, in the past 20 years in particular, superseded by laws (ex. the Patriot Act) and the actions of our leaders that, in the absence of any willing, uncompromising challenge, have become process. I also realize that, as our popular conversationalists will perpetually remind us, that these men were flawed, and that they did not speak for everyone, being elites themselves. In the latter case, given the usual proponents of original intent, I can understand why these points need to be made; they are often glossed over unfairly.

But I'm primarily interested in the argument. Their reasoning for vesting those powers in the legislature instead of the executive office is sound. I don't think I need to provide an explanation of that; it's clear in the excerpts above. I'm a naïve optimist in matters of reason: I expect that a society will move beyond certain notions not because the craftsmen of those notions were slave owners or that a need is established and promoted by the powerful, but because the argument has been refuted. So the question in my mind is, was their reasoning unsound?

It's easy to rhetorically circumvent this particular constitutional limitation using interpretive faculties. We've seen presidents do it from the beginning of the country. The Alien and Sedition Acts were clearly unconstitutional (as are the warrantless searches by the police, the NSA and other security agencies), but there were arguments made for it, and fear induced (the threat of France), and that often is enough to allow the executive run amok. In an unrelated example, take the polysemy of Wilson's statement, “nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war”; how many different ways can that be used to justify action? Rhetoric is what rhetoric does.

We can test the results of this modern interpretation of a president's war powers. In the past sixty-some odd years, during which Congress has abdicated its responsibility to authorize “offensive excursions”, as Washington put it, surely we can point to examples where it was essential to bypass Congress, that the circumstances of the conflict required unilateral action by the executive, that we had no time for discussion, for decision, for the inclusion of the American people in the decision to send our tax money and our young people overseas to expire at the whims of our leaders. I can think of no conflict that necessitated this action, and even if an example is given, the fact that the alternative will never be known undermines even the most convincing historical argument. But it's not about time or need or any other special circumstance, is it? It's about the possibility that the people would not want war, that the Congress would not want war, and that the administration's agenda might have to undergo a democratic process during which its desires, the desires of its “partisans” and the designs of the “private compacts” to which the administration is cleaved might die on the Congress floor.

Bad laws promote lawlessness. Leaders who flout the law promote lawlessness. I thought we'd learned this lesson through Prohibition and other idiotic measures taken by the state in the name of well-being and safety over the past 200 years. But somehow, mainstream thought tends to identify the kind of argument I've made in this post as far-right reactionism, expected from the likes of the Tea Party. But they ignore those on the left making the same argument, like Kucinich and Nader, both of whom have been ousted by their Democratic cousins for these and other heresies. Political ideas, in the minds of the many, seem to be inherently partisan, only found within the realm of a particular, well-defined ideology. Because they are partisan, they belong to the partisans, and are therefore anchored to groups and the individuals within those groups; instead of supporting the idea, we are often trapped in supporting the proponent of the idea, and in that error, we fetter ourselves to his or her humanity, which, as we all should know, is as often grounded in avarice and ambition as it is grounded in compassion and justice.

August 13, 2014

A modern self

The confluence of insulated hyper-individualism and an apparent lack of elementary tools for self-analysis (e.g. a basic, learned mindfulness of the agency of other minds in a shared space) has created a strange circumstance wherein personal concepts of what the self requires to be whole seem to hinge on two notions:

(1) that in order to "be yourself", change only comes as a result of a clinical evaluation of one's personality, no matter how vague or speculative

and (2), that ease of mind only comes as a result of “positive” interactions with others. In practice, the second notion usually obligates dissenters, no matter how reasonable, to stay silent on one's personal proscriptions.

Respectively, we've come to call these notions "therapy" and "civility". The former may facilitate self-analysis, but is not itself self-analysis, though people may treat it as such. In meaning, the latter is a neologism.