Staggering

Compare and contrast...

Another Reform Proposal

Following my recent suggestion that we reform the method of electing our President, I give you another proposal via the Volokh Conspiracy, this one for amending the method of President Succession:

...the 1947 presidential Succession in Office Act should be amended to allow the Secretary of State to be third in line for the presidency after the president and vice president (hat tip Instapundit). Under the current system, the line of succession first goes through the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

I can see advantages and disadvantages to this idea. On the plus side, it would mean a direct continuation of executive policy through one of the President's appointees. On the minus side, the President would be an unelected official. What do you think?

Iraq

Can it get worse? I keep asking myself that and then something like this happens:

Police Capt. Jamil Hussein said Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in the burnings of Sunnis carried out by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia, or in subsequent attacks that torched four Sunni mosques and killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same northwest Baghdad area.

Are there any options left?

Rebuilding, Part Three: Sin & Taxes

Once upon a time, the Republican Party and its adherents did a bit more than just pay lip service to the principles of limited government. If New Hampshire Republicans are to regain their strength, they - to the exclusion of national politics, if necessary - need to ally these principles to a Yankee pragmatism.Let me put some of the puzzle pieces together for you.

1. In order to fund its education system as the court has mandated, New Hampshire needs more revenue.
   
2. New Hampshire has a strong tradition of libertarianism. "Live Free or Die" is more than just a slogan.
3. Even now, we're considering wide-scale legalized gambling as a revenue source.
   

I think gambling would be a collosal mistake, if only because it would create a "gambling lobby," similiar to what we've seen in Nevada and New Jersey. Not only would this fail to shrink the size of government, it could make it captive to special interests. In addition, gambling would (likely) produce a host of social and economic problems which would require more government spending to ameliorate. A wash, at best.

But at the same time, I'm not against the concept of sin taxes to raise revenue. So let's be bolder. Let's legalize marijuana in the state of New Hampshire. Let's regulate it, sell it at our State Liquor Stores, and (most importantly) let's tax it but good. Not only would we get the direct revenue from willing purchasers, I'd assume they would have to remain in the state so as not to break federal law. Another boon for our economy!

I think the War on Drugs has been a staggering failure. It's put millions in jail who shouldn't be there. It's done little to reduce addiction. Is this failure worth billions and billions of federal dollars? Hardly. Let's begin legalization. Let's start it in New Hampshire. And let's make a buck.

An Inkling of the Dangers

If you have the time, please give this post a read over at Andrew Sullivan's blog. He was kind enough to post my review of his book and offer some of his thoughts in response. In all humility, I present you with my own "money quote" from my review:

At what point do individual rights, as protected at the federal level, expand to the extent that state governments are non-entities? Apply these same principles to the economic sphere and you have an inkling of the dangers presented: once something is a federal right, local self-determination is gone. At what point does the federal government shoulder such a burden of protecting rights, so conceived, that limited government becomes unworkable?

The gist of his opinion is as follows:

Would a conservative of doubt be able to endorse "morals legislation" at a local level? I think so - as long as the laws were reasonably congruent with a reasonable social objective. And the judgment of the reasonableness of such a congruence will vary from state to state and from time to time. What might seem eminently reasonable to one generation may not to the next one. The conservative of doubt will carefully navigate these changing social and cultural waters.

As they say - read the whole thing!

Update: Sullivan has now posted a response to my review, wherein another reader says I am deserving of a "bitchslap." That can found here.

In that response, the reader raises the following point: the introduction of the 14th Amendment changed the game. So noted. I agree the 14th did extend the protection of basic civil rights to all citizens. But it does not follow, therefore, that the federal government and the state government have identical functions or powers.

Are the two levels of government concentric about the citizen? Yes. But is their circumference about him the same? No. So to make absolutely every possible action of a citizen into an established federal (emphasis on federal) right will wreck the system of balances. This was simply not the purpose of the 14th amendment! To assert, as the reader does, that my view can be ascribed to mere 'prejudice,' directed at 'private, consensual behavior,' is disingenuous. While my view certainly covers morals legislation, it also could be expanded to include economic activity as well. Should citizens have the right to the same economic and taxation climate in each state? What if "well-being" is defined as right? What then for the scope of federal power? To raise these questions and their implications for limited government is no mere prejudice. It's common sense.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! We hope you're having a calm, relaxing day with friends and family.

Another Silly Quiz

In the spirit of relaxing for a few days, I offer you this entertaining little diversion: another quiz that claims to explain our views to us, but really just begs questions left and right. My favorite:

58) The maintenance of internal order within the nation is more important than ensuring that there is complete freedom for all.

Yep. Because we all know that you can ensure "complete freedom" really well without any internal order! Just ask Iraqis.

Anyway, spend a few minutes, take the quiz, and report your always-entertaining results. I'll start it off in the comments.

A Reform Proposal

While we're talking about proposals to reform this or that, let's turn our attention back to the Electoral College. Is it finally time to put this ancient vestige of federalism into the garbage heap, and elect our President by direct voting?

While I say 'no' to such a proposal, I'm not deaf to the cries of those who say that the current winner-take-all method serves to rig the process against third parties and independents. So let me throw out a reform proposal that, I think, keeps intact the brilliance of the federal system while allowing a greater enfranchisement for more diverse viewpoints.

I call it Electoral Runoff Voting (ERV). It would go something like this: everyone would vote for President on the first Tuesday in November, just as before. But it differs in that, should a candidate receive a plurality and not a majority of the votes in a given state, she would not receive the total of that state's votes. Instead, she and the second-place finisher would face off again in another election two weeks later. Whoever received the majority in this election would then be certified as the official winner, entitled to receive the electors of that state.

This, to my mind, would solve three problems. First, the 'spoiler' effect of the third-party candidate, who often takes votes from his ideological kin and costs them the election (Nader, anyone?). In my scheme, the third rail would be cast out in the second round, leaving the two most viable candidates.

Secondly, it would solve the problem of third parties' permanent ineffectiveness. For example, if this system had been in place in 1992, Maine voters in the second round would have had the choice between Perot and Clinton! The likelihood of third parties receiving electoral votes therefore increases, meaning different viewpoints and programs could no longer be ignored. The national dialogue would be broadened.

Third, it would free us of this current problem whereby a few states are declared "swing states," which receive a majority of the campaigns' time and effort. With this system, politicians simply wouldn't know which states were more important than others. Every state would be in play! As a result, we'd have real federalism: this year Nevada would be crucial, this year South Carolina.

I will admit that the scheme will need refining, since right now it's simply a bolt of inspiration. So take from it what you will. But I think it shows promise. Constructive comments are welcome!

At It Again

Rangel calls for the re-introduction of the draft. I'm calling for a re-introduction of the argument over it on Optimates! Is his proposal for real, or a political ploy? Either way, what do you think of it?

Shamless Plug

Hey, everyone. If you haven't gone here yet and voted for NaNuchka, please do. If they win the poll, the house band of the Optimates could get a little boost, too. As of right now, the vote margin for NaNuchka is eight votes. I don't know what Cato would tell us, but that seems small enough to make your individual vote matter quite a great deal. So vote.

Hours of Fun

Want to waste some time at work? Go to this website. You get to match up possible Presidential candidates and get a state-by-state electoral breakdown. I want to hear your favorite pairing!

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman has passed away at age 94.

One of the most influential economists of the last century, Friedman stood firm for free-market principles when they were out of fashion.

"There are faint stirrings and hopeful signs," he said [in a 1973 interview]. "Even some of the intellectuals who were most strongly drawn to the New Deal in the '30s are rethinking their positions, dabbling just a little with free-market principles. They're moving slowly and taking each step as though they were exploring a virgin continent. But it's not dangerous. Some of us have lived here quite comfortably all along."

Apparently he was something of a wit, too, such as when President Nixon - whom Friedman advised - adopted the price and wage controls advocated by the liberal economist J.K. Galbraith:

"You must be as chagrined as I am to have Nixon for your disciple," Friedman wrote.

Happy Anniversary!

That's right, fellow Optimates and friends, today marks the one-year anniversary of our foray into the blogosphere. At about noon on Nov. 16, 2005, I put up this badly formatted post, and followed it with this only slightly better one a few hours later. We've come a long way!

For the statistically curious, this post - entered right before the noon deadline - is the 416th since our creation. That comes out to about 1.14 posts per day over our blog's lifetime. Not a bad average, considering all of our careers! Feel free to chime in with a comment about your favorite or least favorite Optimates post in our first year, which subjects we handled well or poorly, or just any old thing about the blog.

Here's to another successful year!

Essex

As of this afternoon at about 2:20, I ended my interim tenure as Essex High School's Latin teacher. The kids' regular teacher will take the reins from here. With your indulgence (or without it), I'd like to share some thoughts.

1. I was delighted to discover how eager students are to learn. Admittedly I may have a somewhat self-selecting group, but it's still amazing that the majority of them are so focused.
   
2. Most teachers are dedicated, hard-working professionals devoted to their craft and to their students.
   
3. Many of our education bylaws are counterproductive, and not just the ones that you'd expect.
   
4. Coddling students is about the worst thing you can do.
   

Nothing too profound, but hey, it's only been two hours. Feel free to comment on education policy, your favorite teacher from school, or whatever.

Inside of Gym

Today this song came over the loudspeakers at our gym:

Just thought you'd like to know.

Rebuilding, Part Two: Education

One of the areas where I think the Republican Party (at the state or national level) can and must rehabilitate itself is education policy.

The Bush Administration's first major domestic blunder was the No Child Left Behind act. In it, we had the worst of both worlds: the Democratic impulse to federalize or nationalize state matters, and the Republican reluctance to fund federal programs. The end result was a system of somewhat vague standards and no money to pay for it.

The traditional Democratic answer on education policy has been more money and more federal oversight, a tradition onto which Bush's NCLB was largely grafted (indeed, can we be all that surprised that the bill's main senatorial advocate was Sen. Ted Kennedy?). The only sops to more traditional Republicans were the provisions for "school choice" and "accountability" in the case of failing schools. Again, the end result was confused and has done little to help American schoolchildren.

Rather than play the Democratic game of more federal intervention (sprinkled with the bromide of 'choice' or not), I would like to see the Republicans reclaim the philosophical ground once held in the early 1980s, when conservatives made motions to dissolve the federal Department of Education.

Why? Because it's clear that federal laws aren't the solution to the problem, they are the problem. Unfunded mandates drive up local tax rates, with the result that education becomes more costly for the local taxpayer without becoming more educational for the student. The natural impulse on the part of the local school districts (and voters) is to cut the budget, which negatively impacts education without removing the real burden of the federal mandates.

As I've said before, the first thing to do is repeal bad laws before making new ones. And there are a lot of bad laws on the books when it comes to education.

Rebuilding, Part One

In the wake of the monumental defeat on Tuesday for the New Hampshire GOP, it's time to reassess. How much of it owed to the national tide against the Bush Administration? How much of it owed to the Northeast's continuing realigment? Or has time simply passed by the NH GOP?

Time will test all of the above statements. One of the nice things about living (and voting!) in a small, compact democractic republic like the Granite State is that you always have the chance to test out ideas (why, maybe even gloomy Cato would vote if he still lived here!). So in the following days, as the ideas come to me, I'm going to post on what I think the Republican Party in New Hampshire can and should do to remain a viable, conservative party.

The Election Post

I'm going to use this post as our election updates & discussion spot. As results (from the several states as well as the federal offices) come in this evening, I'll post some updates and some commentary as appropriate.

Until then, I'd love for you to use the comments section to offer predications on the races, as well as any personal voting experiences you had today. Happy Election Day!

Update: 10:30 p.m. This is too big a story to remain hidden in the comments. Charlie Bass, six-term Congressman from New Hampshire's 2nd district, has just conceded to Democratic challenger Paul Hodes. This is the more liberal of the state's two districts, so I'm not entirely surprised. As I write, the 1st district race between Carol Shea-Porter and Jeb Bradley is too close to call. Stunning, all of it.

Update: 11:25 p.m. New Hampshire's delegation to the U.S. House is now entirely Democratic: Carol Shea-Porter just received the nod in the 1st district over incumbent Republican Jeb Bradley. In more statewide news, Gov. Lynch cleaned Coburn's clock by a margin of nearly three-to-one. The State Senate, if trends hold, will pass to the Democrats. It's a very, very different New Hampshire!

Update: 11:50 p.m. The Democratic victory in New Hampshire has now approached truly historic proportions. As of the latest Associated Press count, the State House has switched to the Democratic Party: with a few districts still up for grabs, the margin is 213 D, 153 R. The State Senate looks to be 14 D, 10 R. The Executive Council - The Executive Council! - may well end up 3 D, 2 R. The last time the Democrats had this kind of control over New Hampshire state government was... ummm... let me get back to you on that.

Update: 12:00 a.m. The last time the Democrats were this strong in New Hampshire was 1912. Time flies, doesn't it? And with that, I'm off to bed. Commenters, the floor is yours.

The Granite Crumbles?

Without me in the state, it appears that the Republican Party in New Hampshire is headed for an epic shellacking. Culled from the Union Leader's political columnists (here and here), the gloomy consensus is as follows:

• Governor: John Lynch (D) beats Jim Coburn (R) by an all-time record margin of 75% to 25%. My view is that the GOP deserves this particular smackdown. We ran a lousy candidate and didn't back him in the least. Because he was lousy. So two more years of Lynch.
  
• Congress, First District: Jeb Bradley (R) beats Carol Shea-Porter by a narrow 5%. The lone bright spot for the GOP in the state, but even that is sketchy. My view is that a strong seacoast turnout (read: Portsmouth) could even throw this into the Democratic column.
  
• Congress, Second District: Paul Hodes (D) beats Charlie Bass (R) by 5% or 10%. If this prediction holds, it would be a real disappointment. Bass has run a positive campaign and is, to my view, one of the better Congressmen in the United States. He's fiscally conservative, sensible, and forward-thinking when it matters. You know, a true New Hampshire Republican. Here's hoping he pulls it out.
  
• Executive Council: The Democrats pick up the seacoast seat, bringing the balance on the five-member body to 3 GOP, 2 Dem. With a Democratic governor, the three Republicans may not even constitute a true working majority on the Council.
  
• State Senate: Here the consensus wobbles between a split Senate (12-12) and a slight Democratic edge (14-10). I think the races are far too local to speak in broad trends, but the Senate was Democratic as recently as 2000. It could happen again.
  
• State House: The biggest nut for the Democrats to crack. The People's House has been under Republican control since, well, since as long as anyone can remember. Is the tide big enough to sweep away the final vestige of the ancient GOP preserve? I'll err somewhat on the side of caution and say the final tally is 220-180 in the Republicans' favor. But, as I said above, with a Democratic Governor and Senate, that margin may not mean all that much.
  

If all of the above comes to pass, it would be nothing short of disaster for the Republican Party. So far, New Hampshire alone has resisted the Northeast's conversion to the Democrats. If pivotal, moderate Republicans were to lose their seats (and New Hampshire lose its national cache as the remaining "swing state" in the region), the political climate gets even bleaker as sensible, New England Republicans lose influence.

More work for me in '08, I guess.

Guilty!

Convicted of crimes against humanity.

But will he actually hang? Will this make sectarian violence in Iraq worse, or will it unify the nation in a great catharsis?

Thoughts from anyone?

The Nature of Hypocrisy

The Haggard fall-out continues. If reports and rumors are to be believed, Haggard had sex with a male prostitute and indulged in recreational drug use. His church, New Life, has now dismissed him for "sexually immoral conduct."

You would think Haggard's actions have rendered him pretty much indefensible, but David Frum (the speechwriter of "Axis of Evil" fame) wrote a column in Haggard's defense on his National Review Diary site. In this column, Frum says the following:

Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

I don't want to get into a lengthy theological debate (okay, maybe I do), but this line of thought strikes me as ill-founded. Christianity is fundamentally against hypocrisy of all kinds; Jesus left behind the legalism and emphasis on works so apparent in his day's Judaism.

This is the sentiment behind so much of the Gospels: no one is fit to preach from the pulpit or pray loudly among the public until they have left behind all sin. In that vein, Haggard's preaching does not 'atone' for his private deviations. It makes them all the worse.

Update: After e-mailing him basically the above comments, Frum responded to me with some clarification of his own. He noted that those taking delight in Haggard's downfall were also misconstruing the Gospel message of striving to overcome one's sinful nature, as he (Frum) believes Haggard was trying to do. In fairness, I must note that Frum has a point, and thank him for the correction!

U2 tax shopping

An article over on Slate seems to suggest that U2 is engaging in a grand hypocrisy by moving their operations to Amsterdam to avoid higher taxes in Ireland. Supposedly, this is bad because Bono is simultaneously urging the Irish government to fight poverty while depriving it of extra tax revenues from U2's royalties. According to the article:

Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid....

...relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists.

I'm not convinced that it's so hypocritical. Keeping more of their money in their own hands allows them to direct it specifically where they want, instead of filtering it through the Irish government bureaucracy which would inevitably destroy some of its value in overhead before passing it on to the same programs that U2 could give to directly. Perhaps this applies more to international aid organizations than it does to domestic Irish anti-poverty groups (the best of which may be run primarily by the government, I'm not sure - anyone know?), but it's possible that the same logic applies. I can certainly see how native Irish might be a wee bit miffed, pride-wise, at being ditched by their national icon for tax reasons, but I don't think we can assume that U2's move will automatically be a net loss for whatever causes the band supports.

Absentee Ballot

My absentee ballot has arrived in the mail. Now comes the most painful part of the process- deciding who actually deserves my vote.

Looking at the ballot now, I see that most of my choices will be fairly easy. The Republican slate of candidates for state and county offices is a solid one. Can there really be any doubt about voting for Ray Burton? Of course not.

But then I look at the top two offices contested this year: Governor and U.S. Representative, District One. In the Governor's race, we have a weak-kneed Democratic incumbent, John Lynch, who retains a mysterious popularity among the people. His opponent, first-term state Representative Jim Coburn, has no chance of winning and is clearly second-tier.

In this race, my displeasure is evenly split between Lynch - for being a political coward - and the Republican Party for not putting forward a credible candidate. They were deterred by Lynch's popularity (thin as it is!), and left the field to less-than-credible Coburn. The issue here, then, isn't whether I will cast a vote for Lynch over Coburn. I will not! The issue is whether I will cast a vote for Coburn or a write-in candidacy.

Congress presents a tougher challenge. I campaigned for the Republican incumbent, Jeb Bradley, in the 2002 primary season. He's personally likeable, free of corruption (so far as I know), and not a fire-breather. But at the same time, a vote for Bradley is a vote for continued Republican control of Congress, a prospect which I find disturbing. But on the other hand, there are the Democrats.

The Democratic Party nominated Carol Shea-Porter, in what many saw as an unexpected "protest" against the war. I beg to differ. Shea-Porter fits the expected mold of a New Hampshire Democrat quite nicely: liberal, fifty-something and female. In 2000 and 2002, the Democrats contested the district with a liberal, fifty-something woman (as a matter of fact, in 2002 the Democrats fielded three liberal, fifty-something women: one for Senate, two for the two Congressional Districts). As I am not liberal, not fifty-something, and not a woman, I remain non-plussed by the combination of those three traits.

I suspect this is the dilemma facing many of my fellow New Hampshire "small-c" conservatives. Do we vote for someone whose views we favor in general, knowing that it would empower the corruption of the Congressional Republicans? Or do we vote for someone with whose views we disagree, knowing it could bring to power people who would take the country in an equally wrong direction, but hoping it would stop the corruption?

UPDATE: I've voted. I voted the ticket, with the exception of the Congressional seat. There I voted for the person I think most qualified to hold the seat.