Introduction
This is my third in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related the societal constructions of earning and value. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html). The second was on the purpose of government. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-2-foundational.html ). This entry is on adding social values to the mix, then bringing it all together to form a coherent approach to voting.
Societal values
Previously I discussed the notion of the importance of the social contracts we have all implicitly entered by being citizens in cities, counties, states, and countries. What values drive those continually changing agreements?
Documentary evidence
There are some obvious (though problematic) places to start. The Declaration of Independence states that they held "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration, of course, has no legal significance--it was a rhetorical pamphlet written by a slaveholder with delusions of abolitionism to excuse the severing of ties from a lawful king. However, the line quoted above is one of the most known sentences in history, and it is especially important as a political statement of human rights. Note the values of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution--which has great legal significance--says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." First, note that the government is built upon the consent of the people governed. It is an agreement to be bound together to work toward certain goals. These values include a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty for ourselves and posterity. I list them again to show that this is a long list, not the short one many wish it were (and by short, I mean "liberty," with an implied "personal" thrown in).
It is debatable whether the federal government is intended to be the way many things are accomplished, but difficult to argue that we should not be focused on the general welfare, or that our descendants are invalid considerations.
Personal guidelines
I didn't come up with any of these, but I have attempted to embrace them. Here is a list of some societal guidelines that I think are consistent with these values:
Historically, regulated capitalism creates growth and opportunities for many. Unregulated capitalism allows robber barons to thrive, but communism ignores the importance of selfishness (or, less pejoratively, basic economics). Here are some specific lessons from history:
So, what else?
But only the default, not a presumptive winner. Rarely, personal liberty can be abridged, for compelling reasons related to other values. Within living memory for some, black people could not enjoy the country because they couldn't safely travel. Restaurants wouldn't serve them, hotels wouldn't let them stay, stores were off limits, bathrooms were archaic -- you name it. States had shown that they would not fix this (they had, like, 100 years to do so, after the Civil War and emancipation). So the national government said that people who open up their businesses to the public could not exclude patrons based on their race or ethnicity. (There are exceptions, such as bed and breakfasts.) This abridgement was a large-scale diminution in the rights by thousands of people (probably millions). It meant that people bigoted against blacks could not use the power of commerce in businesses open to the public to withhold services. But it meant that black people could actively pursue happiness and enjoy some of the blessings of liberty that had been previously denied them under the auspices of individual liberty.
These sorts of invasions of liberty require (rightfully so) "compelling interests." Most of the time, such limitations are bound into privileges granted by government, such as corporation status (liability limitations, tax benefits, etc.). In my opinion, they should constantly be revisited to see if such invasions are still necessary, and, even if they are still necessary, if the invasions can be curtailed. (For instance, maybe now mandatory disclosure of discriminatory practices would be sufficient, with other stipulations such as not being able to receive federal contracts, grants, or other money.)
But those of us that pay attention to history know that other sources of power are also suspect. Any time there is a confluence of power--including money, weapons, influence, or any other source--, society should pay attention and be willing to curtail that power if it is used against our societal values. Here are some powerful groups: Corporations, unions, any other large accumulation of money (such as trade groups, rich people, etc.), churches, the military, the press and other broadcasters. If you believe that one main purpose of government is to keep any bully from misusing power against people, government has a role here. To put it another way, Reagan was wrong -- government is NOT the problem. That doesn't mean it is the only solution, either .... It's merely an important, valid tool in society.
What works
As we think about laws and lawmakers, we want to follow the spirit of the union. Those that want to bring religion into politics are wrong to try to do so. A basic premise of the national government, since the inception and definitely more and more relevant each day, is that religion and politics are harmful to each other. Take a look at the Middle East. (Oh, if you think your religion--probably a particular sect of Christianity--is better, look at Christian history ... oh, and remember that Christ himself thought this stuff was distinct from spirituality.)
Instead, focus on what works, and be willing to change. We ran into big problems with the states abusing their citizens (see, eg., slavery and its vestiges), and so the national government needed to step in. That trend seems, to me, to have gone too far. I'm not as worried about some notion of "state sovereignty" here (though that has importance), but instead I'm talking about how to best progress as a populace. If there is only one rule that must be followed without deviation, even incremental change is difficult, much less innovation. Instead, we should fashion our laws to use states as places for experiments. Federal legislation to advance goals should allow for state-level plans to achieve those goals in other manners. This is much more complex, but it is likely that more of our values will be better served.
Also, remember that more money does not equal better results. Ineffective policies often have bad side effects, and pushing more money into them diverts money from other areas and often creates perverse incentives (see the concept of "moral hazard").
In most circumstances, government is best at setting and enforcing rules instead of performing substantive work (the refs, not the players). We should have a bias toward personal liberty that is incented in ways that are ultimately beneficial to society (both for us today and toward our descendants -- don't forget the "posterity" value). Based on the values for government, we should choose representatives that meet these goals.
There are many government projects that work well. I love national parks, and I try to visit them whenever I travel. I like clean, good food and the ability to choose food that does not have allergens, so the FDA works well for me. Our various astronomy projects would be impossible without the government, at least in the beginning stages, and I think we have so many reasons to explore our universe that this almost rises to the level of a (moral) security imperative. FEMA does not always work well (see Katrina), but sometimes it does (see Sandy), and the concept that the best people to respond are those on the scene is silly. They are victims, struggling to take care of their families and friends, and their resources are compromised.
Threats of lawsuits make people too leery to make reasonable decisions related to personnel, capital, and innovation. We need more "safe zones" with lesser transaction costs. When we sign treaties, we should enforce them. Scandalously, we should dramatically curtail the President's military powers. Like the Constitution says, Congress should have to consent before we go to war, and we should not be able to avoid that requirement through using a synonym for "war" such as "conflict." We need to abolish the electoral college because whatever benefit it formerly had has been erased by each state basing its allocation of votes on the popular vote. We should get industry experts (engineers, scientists, academics) to be part of completely revamping our intellectual property laws.
We should improve what works, get rid of what doesn't, and focus on solutions instead of demagoguery.
Conclusion
As part of an active citizenry, I think we should all understand societal values and promote them. Voting is among the best ways, but we should also participate in reasonable discussions that acknowledge that, no matter our differences, we are all people and deserve to be treated humanely. Insulting others is low and more demeaning to the insulter than the insultee.
Crazily enough, the Internet has made it easier to cut yourself off from viewpoints different from your own. We get into trouble that way because we have a tendency to define as "other" those not like us, and then dehumanize them. How often have you heard that liberals are stupid, or that conservatives are mean? There are people that act stupidly or meanly, and they exist across the political spectrum, but suggesting that a stereotype of your opposition is negative only reduces the possibility for growth.
I think the values of our country suggest we continue to strive to do better.
Please vote. And let's continue the conversation.
This is my third in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related the societal constructions of earning and value. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html). The second was on the purpose of government. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-2-foundational.html ). This entry is on adding social values to the mix, then bringing it all together to form a coherent approach to voting.
Societal values
Previously I discussed the notion of the importance of the social contracts we have all implicitly entered by being citizens in cities, counties, states, and countries. What values drive those continually changing agreements?
Documentary evidence
There are some obvious (though problematic) places to start. The Declaration of Independence states that they held "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration, of course, has no legal significance--it was a rhetorical pamphlet written by a slaveholder with delusions of abolitionism to excuse the severing of ties from a lawful king. However, the line quoted above is one of the most known sentences in history, and it is especially important as a political statement of human rights. Note the values of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution--which has great legal significance--says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." First, note that the government is built upon the consent of the people governed. It is an agreement to be bound together to work toward certain goals. These values include a more perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty for ourselves and posterity. I list them again to show that this is a long list, not the short one many wish it were (and by short, I mean "liberty," with an implied "personal" thrown in).
It is debatable whether the federal government is intended to be the way many things are accomplished, but difficult to argue that we should not be focused on the general welfare, or that our descendants are invalid considerations.
Personal guidelines
I didn't come up with any of these, but I have attempted to embrace them. Here is a list of some societal guidelines that I think are consistent with these values:
- Create a government that would be fair, no matter what role you woke up in tomorrow. Poor, rich; various ethnicities and races; man or woman; etc. If I can't know what role I would play (imagine Freaky Friday with a random person), how would I set things up?
- Create a system that allows individuals to strive toward their happiness while gradually helping society flourish
- Always try to limit any one group's power through various checks and balances
- Judge a society by how it treats both its least and its greatest
- Whatever system you create will be unfair in many ways, and that unfairness will benefit some more than others; they should have to pay a larger portion because the current system is making their abundance possible while preventing abundance for others (other systems would create different benefits)
- Use historical injustices as a guide for where to draw difficult distinctions
- Decide if there are minimums below which we do not want our citizens to fall, no matter their situation. (Usually considered in terms of necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, health, etc.)
- We live in a closed system, so all actions and inactions have effects on everyone
- Always consider those who will follow us.
Historically, regulated capitalism creates growth and opportunities for many. Unregulated capitalism allows robber barons to thrive, but communism ignores the importance of selfishness (or, less pejoratively, basic economics). Here are some specific lessons from history:
- Keeping people from non-violently opposing the government, such as through speech, writing, or association, is bad
- Allowing religious persecution is bad
- Allowing clergy to have worldly power is bad
- Discriminating on sex is bad
- Discriminating on race is bad
- Letting the government keep people without justifying it is bad
- Money is powerful
- Charitable organizations cannot handle huge societal downturns, like the Great Depression
So, what else?
We, as a society, want everyone to be able to pursue happiness. That has to put personal liberty as one extremely important value, so for most things, stay out of the way. Because one of the main purposes of government is to keep power from coalescing too strongly in any one group, and because most social issues are not questions of power but of individuals behaving with little effect on others, social issues should be left alone in almost all cases. Indeed, personal liberty should usually be the default position.
But only the default, not a presumptive winner. Rarely, personal liberty can be abridged, for compelling reasons related to other values. Within living memory for some, black people could not enjoy the country because they couldn't safely travel. Restaurants wouldn't serve them, hotels wouldn't let them stay, stores were off limits, bathrooms were archaic -- you name it. States had shown that they would not fix this (they had, like, 100 years to do so, after the Civil War and emancipation). So the national government said that people who open up their businesses to the public could not exclude patrons based on their race or ethnicity. (There are exceptions, such as bed and breakfasts.) This abridgement was a large-scale diminution in the rights by thousands of people (probably millions). It meant that people bigoted against blacks could not use the power of commerce in businesses open to the public to withhold services. But it meant that black people could actively pursue happiness and enjoy some of the blessings of liberty that had been previously denied them under the auspices of individual liberty.
These sorts of invasions of liberty require (rightfully so) "compelling interests." Most of the time, such limitations are bound into privileges granted by government, such as corporation status (liability limitations, tax benefits, etc.). In my opinion, they should constantly be revisited to see if such invasions are still necessary, and, even if they are still necessary, if the invasions can be curtailed. (For instance, maybe now mandatory disclosure of discriminatory practices would be sufficient, with other stipulations such as not being able to receive federal contracts, grants, or other money.)
As I have noted many times now, the point is to keep any group from becoming too powerful. Government is always suspect, so we need to keep it transparent and accountable. Warrant requirements, freedom of information, and exclusionary rules are among the process requirements that, along with elections, try to keep government under control.
But those of us that pay attention to history know that other sources of power are also suspect. Any time there is a confluence of power--including money, weapons, influence, or any other source--, society should pay attention and be willing to curtail that power if it is used against our societal values. Here are some powerful groups: Corporations, unions, any other large accumulation of money (such as trade groups, rich people, etc.), churches, the military, the press and other broadcasters. If you believe that one main purpose of government is to keep any bully from misusing power against people, government has a role here. To put it another way, Reagan was wrong -- government is NOT the problem. That doesn't mean it is the only solution, either .... It's merely an important, valid tool in society.
What works
As we think about laws and lawmakers, we want to follow the spirit of the union. Those that want to bring religion into politics are wrong to try to do so. A basic premise of the national government, since the inception and definitely more and more relevant each day, is that religion and politics are harmful to each other. Take a look at the Middle East. (Oh, if you think your religion--probably a particular sect of Christianity--is better, look at Christian history ... oh, and remember that Christ himself thought this stuff was distinct from spirituality.)
Instead, focus on what works, and be willing to change. We ran into big problems with the states abusing their citizens (see, eg., slavery and its vestiges), and so the national government needed to step in. That trend seems, to me, to have gone too far. I'm not as worried about some notion of "state sovereignty" here (though that has importance), but instead I'm talking about how to best progress as a populace. If there is only one rule that must be followed without deviation, even incremental change is difficult, much less innovation. Instead, we should fashion our laws to use states as places for experiments. Federal legislation to advance goals should allow for state-level plans to achieve those goals in other manners. This is much more complex, but it is likely that more of our values will be better served.
Also, remember that more money does not equal better results. Ineffective policies often have bad side effects, and pushing more money into them diverts money from other areas and often creates perverse incentives (see the concept of "moral hazard").
In most circumstances, government is best at setting and enforcing rules instead of performing substantive work (the refs, not the players). We should have a bias toward personal liberty that is incented in ways that are ultimately beneficial to society (both for us today and toward our descendants -- don't forget the "posterity" value). Based on the values for government, we should choose representatives that meet these goals.
There are many government projects that work well. I love national parks, and I try to visit them whenever I travel. I like clean, good food and the ability to choose food that does not have allergens, so the FDA works well for me. Our various astronomy projects would be impossible without the government, at least in the beginning stages, and I think we have so many reasons to explore our universe that this almost rises to the level of a (moral) security imperative. FEMA does not always work well (see Katrina), but sometimes it does (see Sandy), and the concept that the best people to respond are those on the scene is silly. They are victims, struggling to take care of their families and friends, and their resources are compromised.
There are lots of places that need a lot of work. Much of the Department of Education seems inefficient and unhelpful, to me. Almost all compulsory unions (all that I know of) seem to do more harm than good, now, especially when you consider the "compulsory" part as being a harm. Popular election of judges removes one of the best checks we have on mob rule disenfranchising individuals. We have a broken advise and consent process for executive appointees that results in many appointments not being filled and with many candidates being chosen for partisan reasons.
There is non-transparency in the federal reserve, and that is just crazy. I understand delaying transparency because of volatile markets, but not keeping minutes in the meetings, for instance, is roughly on par with when V.P. Cheney would not release who he spoke with in the energy policy fiasco. For good reason, we, the people, are paranoid about government action. We want to know how the power we have loaned you is being used. This same admonition goes, with even more force, to various PATRIOT Act vestiges, like national security letters. Quit it.
There is non-transparency in the federal reserve, and that is just crazy. I understand delaying transparency because of volatile markets, but not keeping minutes in the meetings, for instance, is roughly on par with when V.P. Cheney would not release who he spoke with in the energy policy fiasco. For good reason, we, the people, are paranoid about government action. We want to know how the power we have loaned you is being used. This same admonition goes, with even more force, to various PATRIOT Act vestiges, like national security letters. Quit it.
Threats of lawsuits make people too leery to make reasonable decisions related to personnel, capital, and innovation. We need more "safe zones" with lesser transaction costs. When we sign treaties, we should enforce them. Scandalously, we should dramatically curtail the President's military powers. Like the Constitution says, Congress should have to consent before we go to war, and we should not be able to avoid that requirement through using a synonym for "war" such as "conflict." We need to abolish the electoral college because whatever benefit it formerly had has been erased by each state basing its allocation of votes on the popular vote. We should get industry experts (engineers, scientists, academics) to be part of completely revamping our intellectual property laws.
We should improve what works, get rid of what doesn't, and focus on solutions instead of demagoguery.
Conclusion
I am not listing my voting preferences (though those that read my blog have already seen them in a previous post). Instead, my point here was to describe one approach to voting that I think allows for consistency. Decide what you think the purpose of government is and what values we should promote in society, then look to how your vote can best promote those (societal) beliefs. Have a very strong bias toward what works, not what sounds or seems like it should work.
As part of an active citizenry, I think we should all understand societal values and promote them. Voting is among the best ways, but we should also participate in reasonable discussions that acknowledge that, no matter our differences, we are all people and deserve to be treated humanely. Insulting others is low and more demeaning to the insulter than the insultee.
Crazily enough, the Internet has made it easier to cut yourself off from viewpoints different from your own. We get into trouble that way because we have a tendency to define as "other" those not like us, and then dehumanize them. How often have you heard that liberals are stupid, or that conservatives are mean? There are people that act stupidly or meanly, and they exist across the political spectrum, but suggesting that a stereotype of your opposition is negative only reduces the possibility for growth.
I think the values of our country suggest we continue to strive to do better.
Please vote. And let's continue the conversation.
Comments
Post a Comment