Thoughts for the Day: Thursday 8 July 2021

 

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

The reality-based community would not have endured and expanded for four centuries unless it possessed formidable strengths: its institutional depth, its vast networks, its reserves of integrity. It can use those strengths to build resilience and resistance, and, after initially reeling from the shocks of the Trump era, it set about doing so.

The Constitution of Knowledge

Jonathan Rauch

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned of the dangers posed by men with “talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity”—men who commence as demagogues and end as tyrants. Later, in a letter to President Washington, Hamilton warned that the “only path to a subversion of the republican system of the country” is by way of the ruthless demagogue who uses fear and flattery to “throw things into confusion [so] that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’ (Location 2930) 

Have you ever read such an apt description of . . . .? [Fill in the blank.] (I didn't have to think twice about my answer, although he has many imitators now waiting in the wings.)

Philosophical Intimations

James Hillman

I have not yet made clear what I mean with our two terms: civilization and culture. For the sake of not imposing a major philosophical position, let us simply say civilization gets the job done as best it can. Culture is song, the song that breaks out in the midst of the job. Civilization needs tools and passes them forward. Civilization looks back to learn. Culture pops up, sprouts in a petri dish. It can be helped or hindered by civilization, but culture can also be utterly autonomous. Culture is surprising, inexplicable, unpredictable, and largely unlearned. Culture breaks into civilization and is often assimilated by it — even the counterculture, avant-garde art, street fashion, pop music and dance, slang — become appropriated by civilization.

The Shape of Ancient Thought

Thomas McEvilley

Western scholars have complained that when Socrates says that knowledge is virtue he asserts “the conjunction of two logically distinct things, an intellectual state (knowing …something), and an emotional one (one in which there is affective backing for doing the thing one knows one ought to do).”

He

Robert A. Johnson

The origin of the word ‘humble’ traces back to ‘humus’—it means of the earth, feminine, unsophisticated. This reminds us of the biblical injunction, “Except ye become as a little child, ye cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Time of the Magicians

Wolfram Eilenberger

The philosophical origin of [Wittgenstein's] Tractatus lies in an unsharable experience, given as a gift, rather than an argument that could somehow be reconstructed with transparent clarity.

Collingwood's The Idea of History

Peter Johnson

Propositions cannot contradict one another unless they are answers to the same question.

Thoughts of the Day: Saturday 31 October 2020 (Happy Halloween!)

 

The Lost Tools of Learning

Dorothy L. Sayers

For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects.

The Age of the Unthinkable

Joshua Cooper Ramo

Studies of food webs or trade networks, electrical systems and stock markets, find that as they become more densely linked they also become less resilient; networks, after all, propagate and even amplify disturbances. Worse, the more efficient these networks are, the faster they spread those dangers.

A Secret History of Consciousness

Gary Lachman

If we assume that what we see of the world is limited by our understanding of space and time, and that these limits are not necessarily fixed, we can use our existing perceptions as starting points for deeper, more inclusive ones.

Prometheus Rising

Robert Anton Wilson

Neither capitalist indust-reality nor socialist indust-reality have been able to give humanity what most of us really want: liberty and justice, freedom and the abolition of poverty, continued growth and continued security. In looking at capitalism vs. socialism, we are always confronted with a dilemma, not a choice.

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison

[T]here is, in the nature of sovereign power, an impatience of control, that disposes those who are invested with the exercise of it, to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. From this spirit it happens, that in every political association which is formed upon the principle of uniting in a common interest a number of lesser sovereignties, there will be found a kind of eccentric tendency in the subordinate or inferior orbs, by the operation of which there will be a perpetual effort in each to fly off from the common centre. This tendency is not difficult to be accounted for. It has its origin in the love of power. Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged. This simple proposition will teach us how little reason there is to expect, that the persons intrusted with the administration of the affairs of the particular members of a confederacy will at all times be ready, with perfect good-humor, and an unbiased regard to the public weal, to execute the resolutions or decrees of the general authority. The reverse of this results from the constitution of human nature. Hamilton, Madison, & Jay: The Federalist Papers (Optimized for Kindle) (Kindle Locations 1680-1689). Kindle Edition (Federalist No. 15, Hamilton).

Thoughts for the Day: Wednesday 2 September 2020

 Erich Fromm: Love is an art form.

Theodor Adorno: Fidelity to love is the only means we have to resistance. Walter Benjamin: We must love without hope. Hannah Arendt: Why is it so hard to love the world? W.H. Auden: We must love one another or die.

"...how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes..." Hannah Arendt

"Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever..." — Hannah Arendt

(All of the above from scholar Samantha Rose Hill via her Twitter feed: @Samantharhill)

Founding Brothers

Joseph J. Ellis

Honor mattered because character mattered. And character mattered because the fate of the American experiment with  republican government still required virtuous leaders to survive. Eventually, the United States might develop into a nation of laws and established institutions capable of surviving corrupt or incompetent public officials. But it was not there yet. It still required honorable and virtuous leaders to endure. Both Burr and Hamilton came to the interview because they wished to be regarded as part of such company.

The Best and the Brightest

David Halberstam

“For there was no doubt in Bundy’s mind about his ability to handle... the world. The job was not just a happenstance thing; he had, literally and figuratively, been bred for it, or failing this, Secretary of State. He was the brightest light in that glittering constellation around the President, for if those years had any central theme, if there was anything that bound the men, their followers and their subordinates together, it was the belief that sheer intelligence and rationality could answer and solve anything.”

A Teachable Moment: A Lesson in Rhetoric, Proof, & Jurisprudence Arising from the Impeachment of Trump, by an Old Lawyer

The Senate trial of Donald John Trump for two articles of impeachment brought by the House of Representatives

Let's use all of the hullabaloos for a "teachable moment." I've taken a quote from a Facebook comment that relates to the current impeachment trial. Let's dissect it and see what we can learn. Here's what the person says:

"[W]ere there a truly constitutionally established impeachable offense committed by a POTUS, the timing should be immaterial. The problem here is that this impeachment is purely politically motivated and at best based on a difference of opinion or views which should be handled in the traditional manner of an election."

I believe that this paragraph is representative of what Trump supporters have been saying for some time now, although it's a bit behind the curve, as I'll discuss later below.

1. "This impeachment is purely politically motivated." First, let's take away the modifier ["purely"] and consider whether his impeachment is "politically motivated." This statement is undoubtedly true. While the law and a Constitution consist of political questions that have been answered at least for the time being and gain the force of law. The force of law means that someone who acts contrary to this decision may be subject to penalties imposed by the state through the judicial process; that is, the scope of any issue is narrowed when we make a political decision that results in a law. But the law can be changed, and if done legitimately, it's done through the political process. This applies to the Constitution as well as zoning or traffic laws. And like ordinary statutes, the Constitution has been subject to changes by courts and the legislative branch (via the amendment process) throughout its history. And how we interpret the Constitution, as we can see around us even today, remains the subject of intense political discussion. The impeachment of Donald Trump involves the power of the presidency, along with many other issues. Some of these issues must be resolved by the courts, but the legislative branch, as an equal branch of the government under the Constitution, also has the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Under the circumstances of the current impeachment, we see Democrats directing their appeals to the text of the Constitution, legislative precedents about impeachment, and the writings of the Founders--especially Madison and Hamilton--to establish their case for impeachment. Trump supporters (apparently all Republicans) have shown much less concern with precedents and legal procedures. (So much for "conservatism.")

2. Now let's put back in the "purely." To say that the House impeachment is "purely politically motivated" is intended to mean, I assume, that it's been undertaken only to gain partisan advantage in the next election. In other words, the impeachment mimics Trump's desire to coerce Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The impeachment has no legitimate purpose other than to gain an advantage in the next election. I will stipulate for purposes of argument to the implicit assertion that all of the information gained in the impeachment may (and should) give Democrats an advantage against Trump in the next election. But to agree that impeachment will certainly give Democrats an advantage in the next election isn't (or at least wasn't) a foregone conclusion. Remember that the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton backfired and cost them dearly in the 1998 election, and it cost Newt Gingerich his speakership. Also, John Bolton might have come forward and offered to exonerate Trump instead of confirming Trump's intention to coerce an investigation of the Bidens. And remember that the Mueller's Report that documented a prima facie (on its face) case of obstruction of justice against Trump went nowhere, contrary to the hopes of most Democrats. So if it was "purely political," it was a hell of a gamble. It could have ended up as a big-nothing sandwich, as did the Benghazi investigations of Hillary Clinton (acknowledging, as one must, that while of no substance, it helped damage her in the eyes of the general public. If evidence, truth, and justification of no consideration, anything goes.)

3. So how do we resolve the "purely?" business? I recommend the thought experiment that I posted on Facebook on 25 January. There, I suggested the following hypothetical oath to be taken (and followed) by all senators before voting on the two articles of impeachment. The text of my hypothetical oath:

"I swear (or affirm) that the decision I make today is the same decision I would make if the president in question would have been Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat. I have not been moved by partisan favor or any motive other than to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

This, I maintain, is the standard by which we should judge each senator's final vote. "It's the standard that I want to be applied to all presidents, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or Libertarian" each vote is saying. And then we the voters must judge their decision with whether it comports with our understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law.

And in some way, this is what each senator is doing because the precedent set by this decision will affect future presidents and senators. If it's okay for Trump, it's okay for the next Democrat president, too. Since Trump's defense has moved from "I didn't do that" to "Anything that I do is okay, including using my power contrary to the law [he did break the law with his action, but it's not a part of the criminal code]. It's lawful if I deem my reelection to be in the national interest--which of course it is!" (An eerie echo of Nixon's claim that "if the president did it, then it's not against the law.") So, yes, even if Trump stays in office (as we knew he likely would), the repercussions of this vote will echo for years to come. In some ways, impeachment law, especially the standard of "High Crimes and misdemeanors" may be usefully compared to the common law of negligence; the definition (of "negligence" or "High Crimes and misdemeanors") is broad and decision-makers (judges, jurors, or the Senate) must apply the concept on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a precedent flows from each decision, although it doesn't necessarily bind the next decision-making occasion.

4. The assertion that "this impeachment is purely politically motivated," is a form of the ad hominem argument. Now your rhetoric or composition teacher may have taught you that this is a logical fallacy. It is, but then logic is a formal system, not an infallible guide to discerning human behavior. The ad hominem argument seeks to avoid the facts of the case by concentrating on the teller. In the law, we routinely make ad hominem arguments by impeaching (raising doubts about) the credibility of a witness. Indeed, every plaintiff and defendant in a case is biased and at least implicitly subject to impeachment. Each party maintains that his or her position provides a true account of the facts of the case and comports with the standard of law; therefore, judgment should be rendered in the party's favor. Other witnesses, especially expert witnesses, are impeached by asking who's paying them (most experts are paid for their "time"). The expert will claim that his or her opinions are based on sound science and nothing else. The astute cross-examiner will point out the expert testifies almost exclusively for plaintiffs (or defendants). It's then left to the judge or jury to sort out who's credible. So how should the final decision-maker (the judge or jury) sort out conflicting testimony given the often inherent bias of most witnesses who testify?

Here, as an example, is what a judge in a criminal case in Iowa tells a jury about how to address these issues:

100.7 Credibility Of Witnesses.  

Decide the facts from the evidence. Consider the evidence using your observations, common sense and experience. Try to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence; but if you cannot, accept the evidence you find more believable. 

In determining the facts, you may have to decide what testimony you believe. You may believe all, part or none of any witness's testimony. 

Whether the State has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it has offered, but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented. 

There are many factors which you may consider in deciding what testimony to believe, for example: 

1. Whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence you believe.
2. Whether a witness has made inconsistent statements.
3. The witness's appearance, conduct, age, intelligence, memory and knowledge of the facts.
4. The witness's interest in the trial, their motive, candor, bias and prejudice.

In other words, consider all of the evidence, not just the background of the witnesses. Foolproof? Hardly, we're dealing with humans here, but this typical instruction provides a standard that you and I can use to judge the case of the impeachment of Donald John Trump (for we will ultimately judge this president and these senators when we enter the voting booth).

5. Conclusion

So to say that "this impeachment is purely politically motivated" provides us with no meaningful information and stands naked as an argument against impeachment. This simple assertion has no facts to clothe it. This failure to mount an argument upon facts and the constitutional text and precedents comports with the tactics of the Republicans in Congress, who, as we near the end of the impeachment, have left not even a fig leaf to cover Trump's shame. The defense, in the hands of the famous criminal defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, has disposed of any need for a fig leaf of facts that would cover-up Trump's abuse of power. According to Dershowitz, if the president wants to be re-elected, he can deem that purpose as in the national interest and thereby manipulate public funds and seek foreign involvement in our elections as he desires. Well, if standing against this conclusion and the facts (no longer seriously in dispute) that support a finding for removal is "purely political," then sign me on.

sng
31 Jan. 2020

Happy Anniversary, America

Today we mark the 240^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We’ll enjoy picnics and parades, burgers and dogs, and cap the day by watching towering fireworks displays. All well and good. But it should also serve—as no other national holiday does—as a time to take stock and reflect on our nation.

I say “anniversary” rather than “birthday” because while our nation can be said to have been conceived—or perhaps given birth—in 1776, it didn’t achieve nationhood until the adoption of the Constitution and the inauguration of George Washington, the convening of the First Congress, and the seating of the Supreme Court. These institutions of government, which formed the character of our nation as a polity, created these United States of America. (We would the become The United States of America until we passed through the crucible of the Civil War).  Now is a crucial time to reflect on the status of this project.

Today we have a carbuncle on the surface of our body politic. Large, red, and ugly, we hope that it may go away with limited treatment and minimal interference to our politics and life as usual. But this is a Pollyannaish view because the carbuncle—or perhaps “bubo” is a better metaphor—represents an underlying systemic infection that threatens the whole of the body politic. Continued vigilance and treatment are imperative.

But this is a holiday, and my personal habit is to reflect on some work of American history or political thought. To this end, I’ll continue my way through The Federalist, the collective effort of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.

Some see this document as a mere antiquary of 18^th-century political thought, but it remains a vital and penetrating work of political thought and government design. The insights and warnings found in The Federalist remain pertinent today. I’ll leave with one small thought from Federalist No. 1:

[A] dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.

(Hamilton)

Spend a little time this holiday pondering these words. 

Some Remarks & an Endorsement for President

Preliminary remarks

Preliminary Remarks by Mr. A Hamilton

Before I commence my endorsement, I’m calling upon Mr. A. Hamilton, of current Broadway fame, the face on the ten-dollar bill, and political genius, to provide an invocation with an eloquence that I can only aspire to.

. . . . The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

 This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

 . . . . I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

 And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

 In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. . . . Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt [the Constitution, or, in this case, this person to serve as President.] I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

 “Publius” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

Mr. Hamilton was writing in favor of what became the United States Constitution. However, I believe that his words can—and should—guide me in giving an account of why I favor a particular candidate to serve as President of the United States beginning January 2017. With Hamilton’s invocation in mind, I shall proceed.

"Fiduciary?"

A Thought Experiment                                                   

Before beginning a consideration of any individual, and to further set the tone for my undertaking, I want to propose a thought experiment that will help guide me, that will provide a talisman for my thoughts. The fantasy is this:

I am a shareholder in a very large corporation. There are about 219 million shareholders each holding an equal vote about hiring a new CEO for the corporation. I am no different than any other shareholder, at least in theory. I have only one vote. I have no insider information, no special financial stake, no personal connection with the candidates wanting to hold office as CEO. In fact, because I have no direct stake, no inherent personal bias, I’ve been awarded a proxy by all of the other shareholders to make this selection! My only duty is that of a fiduciary. I have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. If I am negligent in discharging my fiduciary duty, I will be held accountable—someone will sue me “for every penny you’ve got!”. I don’t have all that many pennies, but still, it’s all I’ve got! But more importantly, I feel a strong moral obligation act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. This includes me, my family, my friends, my fellow Americans, and the rest of world. Every one of us and future generations will feel the effects of my decision. I can’t guaranty that things will work out all for the best. I could misjudge. But my duty is to make a diligent inquiry and use my best judgment based on fact and reason that I can now muster. On what criteria should I base my selection?

As you have no doubt discerned, the “corporation” that I’m speaking about is the Federal Government of the United States of America, and the “CEO” is the office of president. My fellow “shareholders” are the citizens of the United States, with the rest of world (or most of it) holding an interest in its well-being. It remains a beacon of hope and a model of billions around the world.

By the criteria set forth above (in addition to a great number of other reasons), I exclude Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Since Trump remains a viable nominee, I will limit comments to him. He wants to serve as CEO without any prior experience in government; in other words, he’s working on his undergrad degree (campaigning), and yet he believes that he should become the head of the company. He has no strategic plan, he has no compelling history of financial success (his money would have done better over the years in an indexed fund), but he is a salesman. This, I can’t dispute. However, a successful political leader must have return customers; i.e., supporters with whom he will have to deal successfully on a continuing basis. But Trump is a huckster, a P.T. Barnum, who sells snake oil and then plans to . . . what? Trump can only offer more snake oil as he appears to act on impulse and improvisation, as do most demagogues. No, to select Trump or Carson would be a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty.

My Criteria

So by what criteria should I judge the candidates for this most powerful office while meeting the requirements of my fiduciary duty and my self-respect (if not outright pride) in reaching my decision? The criteria broadly put are the following (with a discussion of particulars to follow):

1.    Proposed policies and attitudes on matters foreign, domestic—and given the reality and demands created by climate change and environmental degradation—global.

2.    Character as composed of sound judgment, experience, and ethos (ethics broadly speaking).

3.    Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Now to the Particulars: Policies and Attitudes

In the spirit of Mr. Hamilton, let me be frank. None of the Republican candidates offer policies or attitudes (on the whole) that I can endorse. Indeed, I have a hard time making sense of what most of them say most of the time (and it’s not just a matter of the tangled syntax and logical nonsequiturs that lead me to this conclusion). I say this having been a Republican at one point in my life, and as someone who appreciates concerns about the size and scope of government, the level of the tax burden, the reasonableness of regulations, the usefulness of markets and decentralized decision-making, and the need for a strong national defense. But the Republican brand has become unhinged from reality such that this party can no longer speak to these core issues. With the obvious choice now between former Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders, let me note the issues that should most concern us:

1.    Campaign Finance Reform and Ending Legalized Corruption. Our system is broken—corrupted—by the influence of big money in politics. We—led by our Supreme Court—have legalized corruption by equating money with speech. In a sense, of course, money talks, but such talk is not political speech, it's blunt bribery for the most part. The bigger the donation, the greater the expectation. Senator Sanders deserves strong commendation for speaking out on this topic (and before him, Lawrence Lessig). And Sanders has less “connections” that Secretary Clinton upon which to draw currently for money. But Secretary Clinton has said the right things. I don’t blame her for playing the system the way that it’s set up now, but I think that she’ll push for the appropriate change as well (just as I think Sanders would about reasonable gun limitations).

2.    Addressing Climate Change. The Republicans (except perhaps Kasich) are still in denial and have forfeited all credibility in the light of the accepted science. The question isn't (and hasn’t been for some time) whether we’re experiencing climate change, but how will we address that within a global context. Limited by a no-nothing, do-nothing Congress, Obama has taken some initial steps, but we need so much more.

3.    Economic Inequality. Going back far before the Obama years, the American Dream has become too remote for far too many. Many Americans are getting left behind. This is a long-term, multi-faceted problem that will not be cured overnight. We will need to work on some levels to keep opportunity available to all. We need to concentrate on good jobs, education, and fair trade. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially in judging issues like trade agreements, but we don’t want to continue the slide toward greater inequality, which will only foster greater social disharmony and political demagoguery.

4.    Reasonable Limitations on Guns. Our greatest threats are from within, not from terrorists without. (Remember Oklahoma City?). Not that there aren’t terrorists motivated by radical ideologies (often Muslim-based), but the greatest number of deaths come from Americans shooting other Americans. It’s crazy, insane. We need to stop our gun idolatry. Presidential leadership is necessary, and President Obama deserves great credit for trying. We should all be weeping at our folly and the deaths of innocents.

5.    Foreign Relations. We can’t blast our way into a world more to our liking. We are the strongest nation in the world, and not just because of our unquestionable military dominance, nor even because of our economic dominance. We have to use our cultural dominance, our ability to realize a global order that can last. This means mixing day-to-day judgment with a long-term strategy for assuring American security in a changing world. Force is always an option and may be needed, but as a matter of both morality and intense practicality (and are they so different?), force should remain a last resort.

6.    Immigration. We need secure borders, and we need to recognize that millions of person who’ve long lived and worked in America must receive a fair deal. We have a problem: we’re still a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Let’s use that fact for our benefit, and not as a basis for xenophobia.

7.    Race Relations. Race relations have improved immensely in my lifetime, and they need to improve immensely. Democrats as a whole recognize this. There are no quick and easy answers, but our next president needs to be sensitive to these problems and continue to work towards a plural, diverse nation that recognizes the dignity of all of its citizens.

8.    Court Appointments. We need judges who know that the Constitution isn’t a sacred fossil, but a road map that we need to reference and expand as times change. We need men and women who will avoid partisanship and will honor the rule of law. We don’t need a more “conservative” (pro-business) court.

9.    A Sound Economic Policy. We need economic policies and policy-makers who recognize that we’re in a poorly charted area. But we know that some things will not work, such as austerity. We need a plan to upgrade America’s sagging infrastructure, and we need to focus on creating and maintaining good, quality jobs. This means allowing enterprise to flourish within a system that protects workers and the environment. It happened in the post-WWII era, and we should attempt to replicate that success and balance.

The Republican candidates fail these tests as a whole. They ignore the corruption of big money; they ignore climate change; they offer the same medicine for inequality that they’ve prescribed for the last 40 years, only to see inequality increase. They honor the high-priest of the gun-god, the NRA and refuse to act to end the on-going sacrifice to this malicious god. They mostly offer military intervention and tough-guy talk for a foreign policy. They insult immigrants and ignore the reality of those already here who are contributing to our nation. They largely ignore the problems of race (Marco Rubio, though, made some nod toward the problem, for which he should—perhaps unwillingly—receive some credit. But then, after criticism from the right, he ran away from real, equitable immigration reform.) The Republicans want to appoint “originalists” to the federal courts when such an attitude—the late Justice Scalia notwithstanding—has no legs and only serves to reinforce existing power structures. And Republican economics worships at the altar of free markets and laisse faire while current realities call for changes in our system to take it away from crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and fortune-hunting and toward practices that are more equitable and sustainable. And that isn’t the gold standard, austerity, or tax-cuts for the wealthy.

Between the Democrats, there’s not lots of difference in policies, although Sanders on health care changes and taxation goes off far beyond where Secretary Clinton (and most of the American public) would venture. But the real distinction doesn’t come from policy differences, so let’s turn to character.

Character: Experience, Judgment, & Ethos

Judgment comes from knowledge gained through experience and study. As to experience, I can’t think of anyone better qualified to become president than Secretary Clinton. She’s been First Lady, a U.S. Senator (from New York, no less), and she’s served as Secretary of State. When we look back at Presidents Clinton (Bill), Bush (W.), and Obama, we see what a challenge the presidency was to each of them initially. With most new presidents, the costs of the learning curve are high as measured by the quality of our governance. (We also saw this with Secretary Clinton as well in her healthcare project during Bill’s term.) I contrast this will Sanders service as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and his many years in the House and later in the Senate. He was an independent until 2015, although he caucused with the Democrats. Sanders has been around a lot longer than Barack Obama, for instance, but nevertheless the quality of his resume pales in comparison with that of Clinton.

The quality of person’s judgment is hard to forecast, especially in a new position. In this, Sanders is mostly a blank slate, as his experience at the federal level has remained in the legislative branch. This has allowed him to act and campaign as a true believer, someone unsullied by having to make tough, compromising choices (which are inevitable, wishes to the contrary notwithstanding). As for Clinton, she’s not always had the best judgment: her handling of the Clinton health care plan, the Iraq War vote, and the use of a private email server. But in each of these instances, she didn’t cross any lines that I find immoral or unethical. Like all politicians, she sometimes walks the line, but I haven’t found her crossing over it. I hope that she’s learned from her mistakes and that the intense and mostly irrational scrutiny that she’s undergone hasn’t ruined her sense of forthrightness and risk-taking, but I suspect it’s all had a toll. The business of Benghazi and the email server, both of which I’ve looked into, I find on the whole trifling and not at all disqualifying.

And all of this leads to ethos. Clinton has the ethos of a battle-hardened veteran of some very nasty political fighting. She has a distinctly pragmatic attitude. She expects and is willing to work for incremental change. She’s an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Sanders, on the other hand, draws his energy and his voters from the purity of his motives and views. He is a believer, a socialist from way back (no big deal in my book, although certainly retro). This means that he carries a deep and abiding commitment to equity and fairness, admirable qualities indeed. But having labored for so long in the vineyard of the pure vision, how will he deal with the reality of political wheeling and dealing, not to mention attacks, that he would face as president? Clinton has taken all manner of punches and remains standing. Against Sanders, the Republicans have not yet begun to fight. And is Clinton “ambitious”? Yes. But then so is every man who’s running, and every man [sic] who’s been elected president. Of course, too much ambition and too much purity can prove frightening (i.e., Ted Cruz). Character does matter. Look at the flawed characters of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on the extremes. And when you think about it, flaws in every president become apparent with the unremitting glare of the public limelight and the number of decisions to be made and interests to resolve. You need leaders who can make mistakes and still get back in the saddle, who can trim the sails and make adjustments as circumstances dictate.

By the way, in one sense I agree with many of the young women who discount the importance of gender in making a decision about whom to select as president. Secretary Clinton qualifies on her merits, as it should be, and as did Obama. The issue should no longer be whether we chose a woman to serve as president, but rather why it took so long to do so.

Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Garry Wills

I fancy myself a political realist, an incrementalist, and a conservative (in the Garry Wills sense of the term). I don’t believe any political leader will prove flawless. I hold that if we have a leader who doesn’t do “stupid stuff,” we’re ahead of the game. Politics is a matter of compromise; legislating is the equivalent of making sausage: it’s not pretty, a lot of junk goes in, but in the end, it’s edible. Change in too great a measure will likely result in a backlash or to spiral out of control. Sometimes you swing for the fences, but you must know when to swing, when to hold, and how far you can hit. It’s easy to strike out.

Max Weber

Reinhold Niebuhr

I understand the appeal of Sanders (and even Trump—although I find them in no measure equivalent in fitness for office). They appeal to primal fears (Trump) and hopes (Sanders), but in the end, if elected, those hopes and fears will prove ephemeral and constraining. Following Garry Wills, I avoid purity in politics. We need saints and prophets, but we need politicians, too. Officials who compromise and make deals, who bring home a half-a-loaf because it’s better than none. They don’t often inspire us, but they serve us. Politics is the art of the possible. It requires the ethics of responsibility (Max Weber). Democracy is a form of protection for the majority, not a guaranty of good results (Reinhold Niebuhr; Churchill). Government is the business end of politics, attempting to turning ideas (good or bad; communal or selfish) into reality. It requires smart, dedicated leadership and judgment.

It’s for all of these reasons that I support Hillary Clinton for president. 

Does she look happy? Of course, after my endorsement!