Lawyering as a Profession

I feel very little pride that (assuming I pass the bar exam) I'll soon be a lawyer. Is lawyering an honorable profession? Are there honorable aspects of it at least? I think so...

Bush Wipes Hand on Clinton

I have to admit the video's funny...not profound, but funny...

Podhoretz: In Defense of Palin, She is a Conservative

Podhoretz writes an enthusiastic defense of Sarah Palin in the Wall Street Journal. I find it very odd that a) Podhoretz chooses to focus on foreign policy, b) Podhoretz quickly admits that Palin "...seems to know very little about international affairs..."

Podhoretz follows that concession with the assertion that it is theoretically possible to be a wise leader without "expertise in this area." Ok...he can't be telling us that it's possible to be a wise President/VP on foreign policy while knowing very little about international affairs, right? Right??? So I take it he means that it's possible to be a wise foreign policy leader while remaining something less than an 'expert'.

Shockingly, this "defense" of Palin seems to only ascribe one positive trait to Palin: she has a more positive view of America's impact on the world than Obama. In other words, the reason Palin is a good foreign policy leader for the conservative movement is that she's conservative.

The Dreaded Negative Campaign...!

It just struck me how silly it is to condemn political candidates' decisions to "go negative" by using "negative ads" or other techniques. Negativity per se is not the problem.

Public discourse is greatly enhanced by candidates pointing out the bad ideas and governing failures of their opponents. Certainly we wouldn't want to trust the candidate herself or the media alone to fully explore a candidate's disadvantages.

Instead, candidates should be shamed for lying and for focusing on frivolous matters. Thus, positive campaigning can be worthy of the same scorn, as when campaigns dwell on their own candidate's positive, yet irrelevant, traits.

Legitimacy and Taxation

This being April, I'm reminded of the sobering fact that government keeps a TON of my hard-earned cash and gives it back strategically, with a view toward influencing me to act the way Congress prefers. As a progressive, I want the government to be doing exactly this kind of thing. More precisely, I want the sovereign people, through representatives, to constrain themselves by choosing a tax code that systematically encourages virtue and justice.

But we shouldn't forget the great power and moral weight of the tools that we allow Congress to wield! It's not just the tea party people who recognize that fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake when Congress tinkers with the IRC.

NOTE: Yglesias' analysis of the HCR mandate, which was intended to make it sound innocent and Constitutional, actually underscore my own spin on the matter. Basically: there's only a superficial difference between the feds issuing a $690 ticket for "failure to buy health insurance" VERSUS taking part of your paycheck, then keeping $690 based on your failure to buy the insurance. I consider both options to be freedom-limiting in a non-trivial way that should give us pause; nonetheless, I hold that either avenue is entirely justified under the circumstances.

A Challenging Hypo...

Removing foreign policy from the analysis below leaves us with four categories:

1. Liberal
2. Christian democrat
3. Conservative
4. Libertarian

Currently, libertarian and Christian democrat are marginalized, while Liberal and Conservative are mainstream. What if the roles were reversed? Where would all the various constituencies fit?

• Would evangelicals choose the anti-abortion party or the anti-tax party?
• African American voters would seem to fit solidly in the Christian democrat category.
• Business interests and anti-tax voters would obviously choose libertarian.

Ideological Categories!

Perhaps the most lasting impact of my college political science major is an excessive fondness for cramming messy ideological configurations into precise conceptual categories. In this post, it rears its ugly head. The following eight possibilities seem to cover most of the territory:

1. Small government, social liberal, dove-->LIBERTARIAN
2. Small government, social liberal, hawk-->SECULAR RIGHT
3. Small government, social cons., dove-->RON PAUL
4. Small government, social cons., hawk-->REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
5. Big government, social liberal, dove-->LIBERAL LEFT
6. Big government, social liberal, hawk-->JOE LIEBERMAN
7. Big government, social cons., dove-->CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT
8. Big government, social cons., hawk-->COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE

Currently, Republicans have to pretend they are in category #4. However, many of their records demonstrate otherwise.

For instance, much of the Republican party consists of business-oriented conservatives who care little about social issues, and therefore fit better under #2 (secular right). It seems that the 'size of government' question is the strongest determinant of party-orientation.

Am I wrong that there's a terrible lack of people who truly fit into category #7 (Christian democrat)? I couldn't even find a sane, irrelevant 3rd-party representing my political ideology. Is that too much to ask??

I once thought that Mike Huckabee may fit, but he was forced into something much closer to Reagan orthodoxy during the campaign. I am beginning to think that the pro-life wing of the Democratic party is, in fact, closest to representing my values.

But are these members truly "social conservatives", or merely pro-life? Furthermore, people in category #7 are frequently referred to as 'populist', implying that their support for big government is not principled or that they favor 'fair trade' over 'free trade'. Perhaps I need another factor in the analysis?

Those Whose Hearts Stirred Them

In Exodus 35, Moses takes contributions for the tabernacle, saying "Whoever is of generous heart, let him bring..." and then listing the necessary materials.
At least in this case, the God of the OT does not seek contributions based on a formula. Rather, He seeks voluntary, emotion/Spirit-motivated giving. The command to give has always been about the heart.

The Deeply Trivial Nature of the Republican Party These Days

NYTimes Agrees

Just saw this piece, which details the wealth redistribution accomplished by the bill.

Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill’s attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era — whether you love them or hate them — will probably be around for a long time.

Generally speaking, the political party including poorer voters (Democrats) has been asking the country to shift more wealth toward their health care costs. How should we, as a country, respond to that kind of request? Quoth Jesus: "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Health Care

I basically favor this major re-distribution of wealth away from the old/wealthy toward the poor/uninsured.

I do not believe that the bill will ultimately save money or 'bend the cost curve'; I wish it included medical malpractice reform; I wish, furthermore, that it sought to move people more aggressively off of their employers' plans and onto the individual market.

Nonetheless, the bill was worth passing and is a major step in the direction of a more kind and generous stance toward the sick and needy.

A Millennial Christian Democrat

Some working definitions...

1. Millennial. I was born in the '80s. I don't remember a time before computers. I was in high school during the Florida recount. I was in college when Facebook was invented. Inevitably, my views are shaped by my age cohort. One striking characteristic of my generation, however, is its movement away from organized religion and toward vague spirituality, atheism, and agnosticism. As you may have guessed, I don't share that characteristic.
2. Christian. I agree with the apostle's creed. I am a protestant. I have a high view of scripture. Most important for this blog, I try to rigorously apply the Christian God's values to my life, including politics.
3. Democrat. I do not belong to the Democratic party, nor do I subscribe fully to the views of any nation's Christian Democratic Party. I am generally a social conservative, but a progressive on foreign and fiscal policy. I have many friends who find themselves similarly caught in the middle of the spectrum of American political ideology. Our mix of views is terribly under-represented in American politics. Are there enough of us for a movement of millennial Christian democrats?