The Gadson Review

Romney Will Probably Win the Republican Nomination, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:04:00 +0000

All the evidence points to Mitt Romney becoming the Republican nominee. I must eat my words from last year when I doubted that Romney would get the nomination.

Romney will likely win New Hampshire given his campaign apparatus there, the number of moderates who tend to vote in the New Hampshire primary, and his high name recognition due to his run in 2008 and his time as governor of neighboring Massachusetts. That leaves South Carolina as the best early primary state for conservatives to stop him.

Even assuming that Romney loses in South Carolina (far from a foregone conclusion) he will still have a massive war chest and a formidable organization. Santorum does not have the campaign infrastructure or funding to go toe to toe with Romney on Super Tuesday. As of now, Santorum has around $230,000 on hand; Romney had $14,656,966 on hand as of late December. I predict that Romney will soon deliver the knockout blow to his opposition and claim the nomination.

I must confess myself surprised to see Romney doing so well. His claims to electability do not ring especially true. It is true that he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, a state that has reliably supported Democrats on the national stage. He had only one term as Governor after losing a Senate race to Ted Kennedy in 1994, the same year Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in decades. In 2006, he chose not to run for reelection. It is easy to take a cynical view. 2006 was shaping up to be a good year for Democrats nationwide. In fact, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. As he was leaving office, his approval was just 34%. I strongly doubt that he would deliver Massachusetts in a general election given its Democratic tilt and his low approval ratings when he left.

What is supposed to make him electable is his economic expertise. Indeed, he does have a relatively detailed economic platform that has been favorably reviewed my many economists. But when he was in office in Massachusetts, employment grew at 1.3% while it grew at 5.4% nationwide. Romney defenders might point to all kinds of explanations for this statistic. Perhaps most tellingly, they might argue that Massachusetts’s entrenched predilection for liberal policies (which supposedly stifled economic growth) and failure to adopt more conservative ones caused the economy not to perform as well as the nation as a whole.

But that raises uncomfortable questions for Romney. First, if he was unable to deliver the economic performance he promises in Massachusetts, how will he do so in Washington? It may have been difficult to push conservative economic policy in Massachusetts. But things will not be considerably easier in Washington. He will face a spirited opposition in the Democratic Party, which will have enough power to filibuster his initiatives at a minimum. It is very possible that Democrats will retain control of one or both houses of Congress. Under these circumstances, Romney will hardly be able to waive a magic wand to dramatically lower taxes or make drastic cuts to popular entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.

Second, if Massachusetts’ liberal economic policies were so poisonous to economic growth, why did Romney end up supporting a healthcare plan which ended up expanding health insurance and requiring citizens to purchase it? Cato, a conservative think-tank suggests that Romney’s plan will cost the state of Massachusetts two billion dollars more than it was originally projected to cost. Is this not the sort of big government project that conservatives have often argued ends up hurting the economy by raising taxes on money that could instead be spent, saved, or invested? In short, Romney’s economic performance when he was actually in a position to affect meaningful policy change seems nothing to write home about.

Because of this, and the fact that Romney wants to run as a Washington outsider, he will point to his time in the private sector where he was able to amass a respectable fortune and build Bain Capital into the company it is today. He will also tout his experience running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. But Romney’s time in the private sector will be a double-edged sword. His wealth will make already make it difficult for struggling working-class voters to relate to him. In addition, he will be pilloried for the companies that Bain took over where there were subsequently massive layoffs. Ted Kennedy was able to make use of Romney’s time at Bain quite effectively in their 1994 Senate race.

Can Romney win? Yes. But I believe his fate is entirely tied to the economy. Other candidates would be able to run against Obama’s healthcare mandate or his support of abortion rights to galvanize voters. Because of his past support for the healthcare mandate, he will not be able to use this potentially potent issue in the general election. His record of shifting positions on issues such as abortion and his Mormonism will make some voters he absolutely needs uneasy, and it will cause independents to wonder if he is a genuine man. To put aside such concerns, he needs swing voters to conclude that the economy will not get any better under Obama, and that Obama’s mismanagement of the economy has been so egregious that he simply cannot be trusted with a second term. Voters desperate to improve their economic fortune would then turn to the only alternative—Romney.

On that front, predictions of robust growth in 2012 and declines in the number of people seeking unemployment benefits cannot be especially welcome news. Ironically, a man robbed of all but a market-based critique of Obama’s economic policies is himself entirely at the mercy of the market in this election cycle.

Conservatives and Liberals Overlap on Libya

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:50:00 +0000

Democrats and Republicans have sharply divergent views about most political issues today. The proper role of government and how expansive a welfare state there should be are but two examples. Foreign policy though has turned out to be an exception to this rule in recent weeks.

That much has been evident in the debate over American intervention in Libya. Republicans led by John Boehner have been openly skeptical about American involvement. Of course, Republicans are the party that supported the invasion of Iraq wholeheartedly, at least partly on the rationale that Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant who needed to be removed to free the oppressed people of Iraq. Interestingly, Boehner has been joined by several Democrats in his criticism of the administration’s involvement in Libya.

Unlike domestic policy, there is not a clear liberal or conservative answer in many foreign policy issues. Take the idea of nation-building in Afghanistan. A hawkish conservative might support it on the grounds that a democratic, prosperous Afghanistan will be an ally in the war on terrorism and in the region. Since this conservative wants to project American influence, nation-building might make sense as an investment. A liberal could support nation-building too on a humanitarian basis to uplift previously oppressed people. Of course, a mix of both motives could cause the liberal and the conservative to support the nation-building effort.

Conservatives have traditionally opposed social engineering, at least in their rhetoric. They also do not want the government doing things that people should (in their view do for themselves). It would be perfectly understandable for small government conservatives to oppose taking on a costly nation-building effort in another country. Liberals have traditionally been wary of imperialism or assuming that western nations have a right to impose their beliefs or value systems on other countries. That could easily explain a liberal’s unease with nation-building.

This all has the potential to leave us confused. What is the liberal answer to the problems in Libya? What is the conservative one?

Leave it to the States?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:37:00 +0000

Mitt Romney had an interesting moment in this week’s debate. When asked about the role of the federal government he said that the government should ask itself what it must do, and then leave the rest to the states, or even better the private sector. Such a policy would improve the debt outlook for the United States.

Or would it? The federal government would benefit as it spent less money on priorities like healthcare, education etc. It would have to borrow less money. But the burden of debt would simply be shifted to the states. This is something the states can scarcely afford at this juncture. For example, the states have more than $1 trillion in pension and healthcare liabilities. And that’s just the beginning. California’s debt may be 37% of the economy. In order to save money, Hawaii instituted a four day school week last year. Asking states to carry an even greater burden would cause some to default.

Moreover, having states with such high debt loads is arguably worse than the federal government having one. The states do not have the same borrowing capacity as the federal government, and do not have the same respectability with foreign creditors who are doing a lot of the lending to America. This means the states can borrow a lower amount before they risk default, and that they may not be able to command as favorable an interest rate, thereby increasing their burden of debt. Since the United States consists of both states and the federal government, what happens in the state matters a great deal. So the country’s overall debt picture will likely not improve simply by telling the states to pay for more programs.

The way that shifting functions to the states would help the overall debt situation is if voters choose not to fund certain things at the state level. But remember that the biggest drivers of the federal debts are entitlements. As it happens, programs such as Medicare and Social Security are the most popular. Even if conservatives managed to outsource these to the states (unlikely), voters would probably choose to continue these benefits at the state level. On the margins, certain states might not fund certain environmental programs or discretionary programs, but again, those aren’t what is bankrupting us.

There may well be good reasons to leave more to the states. Saving money isn’t one of them.

Newt Gingrich's Struggles

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:37:00 +0000

It’s difficult to see how Newt Gingrich remains in the race much longer. He was already in trouble going as far back as several weeks ago.

First, he insulted the Paul Ryan plan by saying “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.” Most of the House Republican caucus is behind the Ryan plan, so he upset many Republican congressmen. In order to have a chance to win them back, he probably needed a full throated apology, or explain that his position was mischaracterized. He could have said that he thinks the Ryan plan is reasonable, not right wing social engineering. Instead, Gingrich apologized for the way he made his critique, but not for making the critique in the first place.

Second, Gingrich just had most of his campaign staff quit, including his campaign manager and important workers in early states. They all cited “irreconcilable differences over the direction of the campaign.” In the past days pundits have said that Gingrich wanted to show up at debates and run a social media campaign while aides wanted him to commit to a more traditional campaign, which he refused to do. Regardless, of what these irreconcilable differences are, the mass resignation is a stunning vote of no confidence in him as a candidate.

In some sense, it was always difficult to take Gingrich seriously as a candidate. He has been out of office for more than ten years which is now unusual for someone aspiring to the presidency. Before the campaign began, he was poised to alienate important constituencies in the Republican Party. He had supported cap and trade, as well as a mandate for healthcare that would have upset economic conservatives, and which would have had the added effect of making him look like a hypocrite in the general election for criticizing President Obama’s positions on these issues. His messy personal life—he has had three wives and has admitted to adultery-- could only hurt him with social conservatives. It is not possible to win the nomination without solid support from at least one of these two factions.

I actually worry that Gingrich risks diminishing himself in the campaign. For example, he became the first major politician to sign the sigma six pledge. The pledge goes like this:

First candidates must promise, “to eliminate spending deficits and start paying down the national debt by 2017 by deploying Lean Six Sigma waste reduction methods to detect and eliminate 25 percent of spending per year across the federal government.”

Then “to attend two days of training on the Lean Six Sigma method and complete a waste reduction project prior to my inauguration.”

Signing a pledge like this makes Gingrich look like a desperate panderer, not the intellectual leader of the right that he has sought to become. Gingrich plans to forge on in the campaign. His chances of winning are not 0, but neither are they very high at this point.

Should We Raise the Debt Ceiling?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 12 May 2011 02:35:00 +0000

Washington is still engulfed in an intense debate about whether to raise the federal debt ceiling. In the end, I predict the debt ceiling will be raised in return for some sort of spending cuts, or at least a commitment to cut spending in the future.

The responsible choice is to raise the debt ceiling. Not doing so carries with it the risk of defaulting. In that case, it would be hard to convince people to invest in treasuries for the foreseeable future. If an outright default does not happen, investors would still view the US political system as increasingly dysfunctional and demand higher interest rates, meaning that our debt would grow. This leaves us with two unappealing choices. Taxes could rise which make most people unhappy and decrease the amount of money available for consumer spending and investment at a critical time for the economy. The second option is that our budgets would slowly choke off money for anything besides defense and core entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. Investments in education, job training, and a safety net for the poor among others would all be hurt.

It is possible to imagine how conservatives might like how either of these scenarios plays out. By preventing the government from borrowing more money if they force default, conservatives would require people to pay higher taxes to finance the level of government spending we have now. They may well bet that when faced with a choice between higher taxes and lower levels of government spending, citizens will choose the latter.

But this does not take into account the short term political fallout that could accrue to Republicans in the event of a government shutdown. Republicans have traditionally opposed government programs more than Democrats. The loudest voices on the right want a dramatic reduction in the federal government’s role in the lives of Americans. Even more mainstream ones such as Paul Ryan want to substantially restructure entitlements like Medicare by making what amount to cuts. It will be easy for Democrats to say they were willing to make compromises, but that Republicans were so bent on gutting Medicare and Social Security that they were willing to let the country default on its debts.

Politically, President Obama stands in a decent position to win. What he needs now is a credible plan to reduce the deficit long term that avoids some of the cuts that the Ryan plan or other conservative variants have. Republicans will then have to acquiesce to his budget in which case they share in any of the political pain, or they can allow the country to default and walk away from a reasonable proposal and be tagged as radicals for a generation for wanting to make changes in popular entitlement programs that the majority of voters will not support.

In this game of chicken between the two parties, the stakes could not be higher. If reasonable choices are not made, America will be the loser.

Christians and Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Mon, 09 May 2011 01:40:00 +0000

Gadson Review Readers,

Here is another guest post from Margaret Mou, who posted "A Plea For Religious Tolerance in the Bible Belt" a couple of months ago. The post should be--as the first post was--well worth the read!

Sitting at the table over a bowl of salad and wine, Marcus probes my opinions on religion and politics: two subject areas that out of courtesy and politeness, people usually don’t broach. However, Marcus challenges my perspective, which resulted in solidarity of some aspects, reevaluation of others, and definitely a stronger friendship. So, another thank-you to Marcus.

Food for thought for today: gay marriage (with a Marcus & Margaret twist).

Many argue that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. Marcus brought up an interesting idea that some advocate: give everyone gay or straight civil unions and let churches define marriage however they wish. Those who support this idea think that civil unions would be a solution to the debate since everyone would be treated equally under the law while churches would still have the freedom to choose which marriages to recognize. Of course, some churches would choose not to allow gays to marry meaning that they would not be able to recieve a fundamental religious rite.

So I retorted with the question, “Should gay Christians have the right to get married?” An assumption implicit in my question is that being gay is often innate and not a chosen way of life (seeing as the Bible has spoken in favor of heterosexuals), as well as the presence in some sort of faith in a traditional Christian church.

I feel like every person should have the right to choose who they want to be with, and that churches should refrain from judgment. Hasn’t religion taught us to be better people, to accept all kinds of backgrounds? And thus, shouldn’t gay Christians also be allowed to have the blessing of the community as well as the rest of the heterosexual Christians?

There’s also the point of the fact that it’s the church’s opinion of whether or not to acknowledge the marriage of individuals, but if I were in charge of the decisions of a church, I’d gladly welcome anyone who chooses to marry under my smiles and love.

And my inner sappiness comes out, wishing each and every individual the ability to find a healthy love and be loved in return, and to celebrate that magic without any hindrances, without any obstacles, and without any scorn from others.

-by Margaret Mou

Thoughts on Osama bin Laden

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 05 May 2011 00:04:00 +0000

Osama bin Laden is finally dead. The biggest questions about his death remain unanswered however.

What does bin Laden’s death mean for Al Qaeda and terrorism more broadly? Perhaps terrorists view bin Laden as a martyr and launch a wave of attacks in retaliation. It is without a doubt that there will still be terrorists and that Al Qaeda will continue to operate in some fashion. But I can’t help thinking that getting bin Laden will greatly help America’s counter-terrorism efforts. Bin Laden was the most visible symbol of terrorism in the world. The fact that the US spent over 10 years trying to get him shows that it means business when it goes after terrorists. In effect, if you mastermind attacks, the US will hunt you to the ends of the earth. I think—or at least I hope—that has some deterrent effect on would-be terrorist leaders.

Secondly, what will this mean for Obama politically? In the final analysis, probably not much. George W. Bush saw his approval rating spike after American forces captured Saddam Hussein in 2003 only to see it go back down as the 2004 election approached. Similarly, Obama faces an election coming up next year where the focus will be on the economy, where Obama is not polling so well. So while this may be a short term boon, I doubt it will do much for Obama long-term.

What do you think this will do for Obama’s political fortunes? Take the poll!

Republican Presidential Rankings List Updated

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 01 May 2011 04:00:00 +0000

The informal race for the Republican nomination is well under way. It is time to update the rankings list I came up with for the candidate most likely to come away with the nomination. Here it is! The list is somewhat abbreviate due to the uncertainty over who will ultimately run.

1. Tim Pawlenty

I realize this pick will come as a strong surprise to most. He barely registers in most polls and he has low name recognition. The reason I think he currently has the best chance to do win is because he has done the most of anyone outside Mitt Romney to lay the groundwork for a campaign which will pay off in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. He also has the best chance to be the consensus conservative in the race. No wing of the Republican Party seriously objects to him. The same cannot be said of other major contenders. What I suspect is that the race could come down to him vs. another candidate who has angered some portion of the party’s base. In that competition, you’d have to give Pawlenty—who has angered no one—decent odds.

2. Mike Huckabee

It’s true that Mike Huckabee has not made the serious moves that some other contenders have. But there are some powerful factors in his favor. He is almost always at the top of national polls. He still retains a large following from his 2008 campaign. I would say he is the odds on favorite to win in Iowa and South Carolina if he runs due to his popularity with social conservatives. It’s difficult to see a current candidate challenging him for the evangelical voters in Iowa where he won in 2008. With early wins from these crucial states, Huckabee would have momentum to carry him to Super Tuesday. One of his principal defects as a candidate in 2008 was that he was unable to raise a lot of money. But with higher name recognition, and all the contacts from his 2008 campaign, I suspect he will be able to raise more money even if fundraising is never his strong suit. The biggest problem for Huckabee is the fact that some fiscal conservatives have questions about his record as Governor. But Huckabee is far to the right of Obama on taxes and spending and fiscal conservatives may well decide that his electability and appeal to working class swing voters make him worth nominating so he can beat Obama even if his record isn’t perfect.

I think these two currently have the best chance to win. But clearly, the field is in flux right now in part because it is unclear who will actually run. I will be able to make predictions with greater certainty as the field takes shape.

Thoughts on the Ryan Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:21:00 +0000

Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is arguably the face of the Republican Party right now. His proposed budget is driving much of the discussion on how to deal with debt, spending, and taxes. Here is a brief summary of what it would do:

1. Bring non-defense discretionary spending to pre-2008 levels
2. Convert federal share of Medicaid into a block grant that states would have control over
3. Repeals Obamacare
4. Privatizes Medicare. Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.
5. Cuts the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%

I want to start by giving Ryan credit. He has proposed something which has sparked debate. He has come up with real measures to reduce spending and taken considerable risk doing so. There are however two fundamental problems with his budget. First, it does not actually balance until far down the road. This is primarily because it preserves tax cuts for the wealthy and holds off on making changes to Medicare for those 55 or older. This was understandably done to make the plan an easier sell politically. But the result is that dramatic savings will not be realized in the near term.

That means the problems attendant in having such a large debt still exist. Creditors will be worried and could demand higher interest rates to invest in US debt, thereby increasing the burden of debt. In the next decade, high government borrowing could still crowd out private investment. Debt is projected to reach $16 trillion, requiring an increase in the debt ceiling that Republicans say they oppose. So, Ryan’s budget fails at its most important goal: balancing the budget and getting the debt under control.

It’s debatable whether the plan has impact in the medium term because of some assumptions the Ryan plan makes. He assumes that growth will be 3% instead of the average of 2.8%, and that we will have an unemployment rate of 4% in 2015 and a shocking 2.8% in 2021. These lower unemployment rates would of course mean more tax revenue which would help balance the budget. Of course, Ryan is not the only politician to make optimistic forecasts in budgets; Democrats do the same. Regardless, these assumptions make it hard to believe that Ryan’s plan will have the effect he says.

Furthermore, even if Ryan could balance the budget with his plan, it’s politically unrealistic. Those who are say 50 years old—right under the age Ryan proposes exempting from changes—who have planned on having Medicare for decades will be unhappy to see fewer benefits. Many will believe that they have been left in the lurch and worry that they will not be able to pay for healthcare when they retire.

So while Ryan may have mitigated political difficulties by sparing those over 55, he did not eliminate them by a longshot. At the same time, the wealthy will be paying lower taxes. Democratic campaign strategists will have a field day running ads showing millionaires paying the lowest taxes ever while insinuating that vulnerable senior citizens are not getting the help they need. Ryan will be accused, not just of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, but on the backs of everyone who is not rich.

Ryan’s contribution is that he has made us consider fundamental changes to our social compact and challenged us to consider how expansive a welfare state we can afford over the next decades. But his plan’s shortcomings mean that while it made a good beginning to our deficit debate, it would be a poor end.

Thoughts on the Budget Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:47:00 +0000

A government shutdown has been averted at least for now. Democrats and Republicans agreed on a budget that cut about $39 billion. Speaker of the House John Boehner has pledged that he will work towards cutting trillions and not billions. For his part, President Obama is readying a budget that he says will really address the deficit.

Looking at the politics of the situation, Obama has a chance to benefit greatly. The deficit is indeed a threat to America’s long term economic health. Obama could propose a plan that slows the growth of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and produces real savings. The Republicans will have two unappealing options.

First, Republicans can oppose Obama’s plan while not proposing any more cuts. Republicans may choose this option because they do not want to get burned politically for making radical changes to popular programs. But if Republicans do this, they will appear cynical to independent voters and likely lose the ability to use the deficit as a cudgel against Obama with these same voters. They will also temper enthusiasm in the Republican base going forward into the elections.

Second, Republicans can try and avoid the pitfalls of the first option and keep the deficit as a major issue by proposing drastic cuts to government programs. If Republicans do this, they will be wide open to charges of extremism. They also risk alienating senior citizens—who tend to vote— who benefit from Social Security and Medicare in as an important election year comes up.

That is not to say that there are no risks for President Obama. If he accedes to meaningful cuts to Social Security and Medicare he will upset liberals who strongly support such programs. But the question then becomes how much he will truly pay for liberal Democrats being upset. Where else will they go? Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has become the face of the Republican Party on the budget. Democrats have called his budget extreme and draconian. These voters will simply not support Republicans. Perhaps they will stay home. But I bet White House political strategists will end up convincing them that it is important to vote so they avoid right wing Republicans taking over government.

Can We Be Moral Without God?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:58:00 +0000

What does it mean to be moral? It would seem that most people agree on some common ideas most of the time: tell the truth, do not harm others, and help out those in need. Yet, there are two divergent schools of thought on many moral questions: deontological and consequentialist. In this post, I want to consider whether it is possible for there to be a moral framework based on duties and obligations without a God.

Atheists of course do not believe in God while deontologists believe evaluate moral actions based upon duties. Consequentialists believe that the most moral action in a given situation is that which produces the best consequences. For someone who believes in God, it is relatively easy to be a deontologist. The Bible, the Quran, and the Torah give out clear guidelines for duties that people have in life. An omnipotent, omniscient being is telling us what the right thing to do is.

If there is no God, then people have to decide in some way what duties and obligations there are in life. There are a couple of ways possible. First, we could decide what duties and obligations we have based upon what the majority of people want. In the same way that majorities of citizens decide which clothing is fashionable, or what our healthcare system should be like, majorities would then decide our moral duties.

The problem is that majoritarianism can produce all manner of unjust arrangements. One need only look at the majority of Southerners who supported Jim Crow laws, or the majority of Germans who approved of anti-Semitism. For every example I give here, there are probably dozens of others. Is this record particularly inspiring?

The second way would be more subject to individual interpretation. Even if the majority of citizens felt one way about morality, perhaps individuals could by themselves reason what duties and obligations they had. They would not be able to merely assert that duties exist based upon their feelings; they would have to figure their duties out through reflection and thought, and be able to prove them through argument and debate. There are a few problems though. First, many if not most people lack the time for this. They have jobs and families to support. Will they really be able to devote the time to reasoning through what their moral duties are?

Second, invoking reason gives a person ample opportunity to consider a consequentialist framework for a moral decision. If a person is busy trying to derive the moral duties he ought to live by through reason, then that same reason will cause him to consider self-interest as well as costs and benefits to a moral decision.

Indeed, reason will require that he do so since he cannot make a reasonable decision without having taken these things into account. This means that for many if not most people, concern about consequences will have a chance to also inject itself into the moral decision-making process. If this concern drives the process even a little bit, then it is difficult to envision the final decision being based entirely on duties and obligations.

Perhaps ironically given these difficulties, to believe that most people can uphold a deontological framework absent a God most of the time may require an act of faith. Of course, this does not mean it is impossible for someone who doesn't believe in God to make decisions based on duties and obligations. Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't tell us whether deontology is the right framework to evaluate moral decisisions.

Obama's Libya Speech Tonight

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:43:00 +0000

President Obama spoke to the nation tonight and sought to rally support for his intervention in Libya. I think he had some important goals: to clarify objectives and inspire the public to support them.

One rationale was that the US had to step in to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians:

I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world's condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air….

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

So far so good. I think most Americans are convinced that Gaddafi is a bad man and a tyrant. Getting rid of him seems reasonable from a humanitarian point of view. That brings to mind two objections though: why intervene in Libya and not elsewhere, and what is the US plan for a post-Gaddafi Libya? In other words, it is not enough just to remove Gaddafi from power. We need to be sure that the country that emerges does not cause instability in the region and that those who claim power are actually better for Gaddafi. Obama had a decent explanation for why intervening in some countries was justified even when we cannot intervene in all.

What did Obama have to say about Libya after Gaddafi? Not much. He said that the US will hand over control of the operation to NATO on Wednesday. This sort of absolves him of the ability to give us a plan for Libya’s future. What I did not see though, was and end-game for the NATO operation. How will NATO ensure that post-Gaddafi Libya gets off to a good start? How can we be sure that the government that emerges will be better than that which was left behind? These questions were left unanswered.

In the end, I think Obama probably did a good job of increasing public support for his Libya intervention by making a powerful case against Gaddafi. But in the end, I am still not completely clear on the objectives. One part of the speech stands out:

Of course, there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Earlier in the speech, Obama says that Libya will remain dangerous as long as

Gaddafi remains in power. But what if non-military means (ie sanctions and political pressure) fail? After all, non-military means did not work with Saddam Hussein and he eventually was removed from power only by an invasion. If Gaddafi remains in power despite these non-military measures, then we have emboldened other dictators and made the situation in Libya no better. What is Obama prepared to do if non-military measures fail? That is perhaps the biggest question left.

Why do Christians Oppose Pre-Marital Sex? Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

I promised a sequel to my first post about Christians and premarital sex. So here it is! In this post, I will consider the theological reasons many Christians oppose premarital sex.

These theological reasons have to do with the Bible. So the important question becomes, what does the Bible have to say about premarital sex? There are several passages cited in favor of the idea that the Bible prohibits premarital sex. One comes from the Song of Solomon: “Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.” By itself, this passage does little to prohibit premarital sex. Perhaps two people feel that love is truly ready to be awakened by having sex prior to their wedding day.

There are several passages that condemn sexual immorality. One is: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5). Another is “I fear that when

I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.” (Corinthians 12:21) Of course, that leaves one to wonder what constitutes sexual morality since the passage does not explicitly tell us. It is hard to see the Apostle Paul or Christ approving of one-night stands to be sure, but would two people in a committed relationship who are not married and who are monogamous be engaging in immorality by having sex? It is hard to know because premarital sex is never mentioned; homosexuality, adultery, and even sons sleeping with their mothers are, by contrast.

A catch-all passage is “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).” Essentially this passage tells us that believers are not to do anything which God would disapprove of. Many times, people have sex more out of impulse or physical desire than out of love. As I stated earlier, it is hard to envision God approving of hook-ups rampant in fraternity basements or one-night-stands. But again, what about the couple who is committed to each other and genuinely feels like they are in love? Are they really dishonoring God?

We know that the Bible does not approve of casual sex. The apostle Paul endorses marriage, but only so that people will not be consumed by passion. In other words, it would be better for people to marry so they do not spend all of their time thinking about sex or seeking their next partner. This is the best evidence I see for a prohibition on premarital sex. Constantly thinking about/engaging in sex outside of marriage is sinful, which is the reason why Paul condones sex within the bounds of marriage.

Of course, in addition to the theological case against sex, Christians make a practical case, which I covered here. What do you think? Does the Bible prohibit premarital sex?

The Gadson Review's Take on Libya

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

After weeks of trying to decide what to do, President Obama has gone to war. He has backed a “no-fly zone” and has called Gadhafi a tyrant whom he cannot sit idly by and allow to murder innocent civilians. As of now, French and British planes are primarily the ones dropping bombs on Libya to get government forces to stop attacking rebel strongholds. This has all been done with Obama’s backing.

Outside intervention strikes me as quite risky. First, there is the possibility that Gadhafi will hang onto power. The US and its allies may well decide not to launch a ground invasion to minimize casualties. Although Gadhafi would have to stop attacking the rebels, he might be able to negotiate a cease-fire and some kind of arrangement that allows him to stay on as leader. Western interventions do not always cause dictators to leave office. Slobodan Milosevic holding onto power in Serbia is a good example of that. If this happens, the West will be seen to have failed, and revolutionaries in the Middle East will wonder if the West will actually be able to help them if they revolt. Even worse, western leaders will have to live with the fact that bombing caused civilian casualties.

Perhaps intervening will even make it more likely for Gadhafi to remain in power. He will be able to claim that the rebels are pawns of meddling foreigners and turn public opinion among those on the sidelines against the rebels.

Second, ousting Gadhafi could be longer and harder than expected. The allies might have to launch a ground invasion, which would entail a substantial cost both in money and lives. This comes at a time when western nations’ budgets are stretched too thin as is, and when they have lost some appetite for foreign adventures because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ultimate end game most observers envision is a stable democracy. If Iraq is any guide, that will take some time.

Lastly, there could be a power vacuum once Gadhafi is gone. All those who have been shut out for so long will want a chance to hold power, and may resort to violence to get it. This would lead to a civil war that would arguably be worse than allowing even someone as bad as Gadhafi to stay in power.

In any of these scenarios, Obama will gain nothing politically. Conservatives who wanted Obama to intervene will fault him for not “winning” the war. Humanitarian liberals will fault him for not stopping the bloodshed. Budget hawks will accuse him of digging a bigger hole for US finances with foreign adventurism. Voters of all stripes may well feel that he went into war without an exit strategy, something Senator Obama faulted President Bush for in Iraq.

Obama will be criticized for letting the French and British take the lead in the operation. Some conservatives will say he is allowing foreigners to be the ones standing up for liberty and freedom while the US stands meekly at the side. He will be portrayed as weak and indecisive. In the final analysis though, perhaps Obama was right to allow the Europeans such a prominent role.

Right now, the US is busy fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these are critical to US national security and international standing. If the US can get Iraq and Afghanistan right, it will have made two viable democracies in the Middle East which fight Islamic extremism and ally with the US. By contrast, failing in those two countries would not only put trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to waste, it would cause the rest of the world to truly question American power. It would make friends and allies immediately more skeptical of future US efforts at nation-building and democracy promotion. Simply put, the US cannot afford to be the world’s sole policeman. Even a superpower can benefit from having friends pitch in.

It is difficult to say how Libya will turn out in the end. It is easy to say however, that potential costs are great.

Will the Tea Party Succeed?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:00:00 +0000

Just last fall, the Tea Party was ascendant. It elected scores of new members to Congress, and many Americans had a favorable impression of it. Yet whatever the Tea Party’s political success recently, it looks as if most Americans reject its policy of dramatically reining in government including programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 76% of Americans for example oppose reducing Medicare benefits. This means that even a substantial number of Republicans want to spare the program cuts.

At first glance, this is a bit surprising. Americans disapprove of the enormous federal deficit and say they want something done about it. Indeed, the consequences of not having a credible plan to address the deficit in the next few years could be devastating for the economy in the next few years. Wouldn’t Americans then support cutting Medicare and Social Security since they are such big drivers of the deficit?

As a Bloomberg study found, many voters have misperceptions of what programs contribute to the federal deficit. In fact, seven in ten voters think that foreign aid is a major government program when it reality it consumes about 1% of the federal budget. Of course, it is hard to blame voters alone for this. For decades, politicians have pledged that they will balance the budget. But too many claim that they will simply make government more efficient, or stamp out “waste, fraud, and abuse.” The upshot is that they can claim to be deficit hawks while sparing their constituents major pain. To the extent that they do target certain programs, it is easier to go after those that disproportionately benefit the poor—voters who have less power in our political system than the middle class or the wealthy.

I think this latest poll could have interesting implications for the 2012 race. For example, Mitch Daniels is being talked up a lot by pundits for his message of austerity and his record of cutting government spending in Indiana. He is probably one of the top contenders for the nomination. But if voters are still averse to spending cuts that will affect them, how well will his message really play? In fact, it could be a disaster. If the economy is improving and Obama produces a credible plan to reduce the deficit without altering Medicare and Social Security as much as Daniels wants, Democrats will have a field day. Daniels would appear heartless and out of touch. He might be susceptible to losing as badly as Walter Mondale or George McGovern, two men perceived as outside the mainstream.

This means that Daniel’s strategy of calling a truce on social issues may not be the best one. With centrists and moderates unlikely to support drastic changes to entitlements, the Republican nominee would need a strong turnout from the base to have a chance of winning. This would mean that social conservatives would need to be genuinely excited about Daniels in a way that they are not currently. Given this, perhaps the strongest nominee Republicans can muster would be someone like Huckabee who could get a big turnout from important evangelical voters.

If voters support deficit reduction only in theory, then it is conceivable that the same could be true for candidates who make their biggest issue the deficit.

Why do Christians Oppose Pre-Marital Sex?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:59:00 +0000

In many pulpits this Sunday, pastors will preach about the sanctity of marriage. One of the things some will mention is the need for Christians to refrain from premarital sex. Some evidence suggests that this is one teaching many young Christians (as well as their secular counterparts) simply are not following. It is worth considering why Christians have this teaching in the first place.

There are both practical and theological arguments advanced. In this post, I will consider the practical ones. Even today, sex carries with it the risk of disease and unintended pregnancy. AIDS for example, is prevalent in parts of Africa. Even in America and other industrialized western nations, there is no shortage of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis or chlamydia. Each year in the US alone, about 800,000 teenagers become pregnant without wanting to. This is in a day and age with condoms and birth control pills. Historically, there were none of these, so the risks of careless sex were even higher. Seen in this light, the prohibition on premarital sex was one way a loving God sought to keep people healthy. Today though, with modern birth control methods, many wonder if the same goals couldn’t be accomplished by providing better access to birth control.

Another argument is that not having premarital sex facilitates marital fidelity. If young people can keep from having sex despite their raging hormones and can build some self-discipline, they will be better able to resist temptation in marriage. They will remember that they went years without impulsively having sex at a time when their sex drives were at their highest, and then be able to summon the ability to turn down an offer of sex from someone they’re attracted to. This becomes even more plausible if they were in a long term relationship with the person they married and refrained from having sex. If they could say no to the person they loved, won’t they be able to say no to someone they simply have a temporary infatuation with?

Lastly, premarital sex opponents believe that sex is an extremely personal act with the ability to bring two people closer together. If both partners have had sex with a lot of people though, perhaps there is the risk that they will worry about how they measure up to previous sex partners at a time when they should simply focus on experiencing a profound expression of love. Such comparisons could only make sex less enjoyable. So perhaps, pastors asking young people not to have sex are really asking them to make a choice that leads to the most fulfilling sex life in the end. This again could be evidence of a loving God trying to ensure that those who follow him have the happiest lives possible.

Moreover, sex is generally considered as the highest form of intimacy a couple can have. It is the way two married partners express their love for each other. Most people still frown upon adultery--when a married person has sex with someone other than his partner--because they feel in some sense that sex is evidence of a unique bond that only a married couple can share. If the two spouses have had sex with lots of previous partners though, can the couple actually enjoy a highest form of intimacy that sets their relationship apart from the other relationships they have had? In other words, since both husband and wife have had sex previously, is sex evidence of the unique bond they share? If sex cannot be evidence of such a bond, then how can two people show affection to each other in a unique way?

But the minute Christians make practical arguments for the teaching on premarital sex, they invite interesting responses. Specifically, what does the teaching on premarital sex do for church membership? A lot of young people might feel that an absolute ban on premarital sex is unrealistic and prudish. They may well shy away from churches where they listen to what they perceive to be lectures on their sex lives. If they don’t go to church, they can’t get the message on salvation or the need of following Christ. That raises an interesting question: does prohibiting premarital sex diminish the number of souls the church can save?

By extension, does prohibiting premarital sex diminish the moral influence of Christians in society? If people assume that Christian morality is a relic of a time long past, will they listen when the church tries to push for a more just or more “Christian” society? They may not even be tuning in.

None of that matters though, if the theological case against premarital sex is solid. Here there is a lively debate centering on history and theology that I will consider later. For Christians, what the Bible has to say will win the day over practical considerations. I look forward to writing a post in the near future about the theological basis for the prohibition on premarital sex.

Is Mitt Romney Really the Republican Frontrunner?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:19:00 +0000

Despite the fact that no candidate has officially entered the race for the Republican nomination for President, some commentators and party insiders are anointing Mitt Romney as the front-runner. I am surprised that anyone thinks there is a frontrunner in the Republican race, or if there is, why it is Romney.

Romney’s only advantage that I can think of his is his ability to dip into his substantial pockets. This means he will be able to run plenty of ads and build a strong organization. But there are other plausible Republicans who can raise lots of money such as Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, and Newt Gingrich. So the ability to raise money does not really set Romney apart. Neither do his management credentials. Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels can claim to have cut their state’s spending and made government more responsive and efficient.

Contrast this with the several disadvantages Romney has. Perhaps the biggest was his support of a healthcare scheme in Massachusetts that had an individual mandate. In a way, Romney’s fate is tied to the popularity of Obamacare, which is currently low among Republicans and independents. At several points in the campaign, Romney will be forced to defend or repudiate his law. This becomes even tougher when court decisions are added in. When decisions come out claiming that the mandate is unconstitutional. Romney will be asked point blank “do you think Obamacare’s mandate is constitutional.” If he says no, he will be at odds with the tea party grassroots of his party. If he says “yes,” the inevitable follow up question would be why he ever supported a law that was unconstitutional.

He will no doubt promise to appoint conservative “strict-constructionist judges” of the sort who will be most likely to find the mandate unconstitutional. How can he square his support for judges whose rulings will bring about more limited government with his support for a healthcare plan that can be described as anything but limited government?

He can change positions and reinforce his image as a slick politician or continue supporting the law and run afoul of movement conservatives. Romney’s healthcare plan alone poses several challenges to his candidacy. If he is lucky enough to make it to the general election, one of the Republicans’ most potent issues will be nullified. It is easy to see Obama saying “When considering how to reform healthcare, I looked at a lot of different models. I thought yours was the best.”

Then there are his flip-flops on social issues. Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life. He was pro-gay rights before he was against them. These changes of heart—however genuine they might be—will always cause the evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucus and South Carolina primary to wonder if Romney is really one of them. This problem is only compounded by Romney’s Mormonism which some of these voters consider a cult.

Romney cannot contend that he is uniquely electable. Even though he was Governor of Massachusetts, he neither sought nor won a second term. During the Democratic wave year of 2006, there is a good chance that he in fact would have lost. Few remember that when he decided not to run, he had a scant 34% approval rating and that he trailed potential Democratic rivals in polls. It is hard to see Romney delivering Massachusetts to Republicans or any other state in the northeast for that matter.

During the 2008 primaries, Romney struggled with working class voters. This was for any number of reasons: his flip-flops, a high net worth that made it hard for the average American to relate, and a communication style at times more suited to a Wall Street boardroom than the campaign trail. These working class voters will likely be swing voters in 2012 assuming that the economy has improved somewhat but still has a ways to go. Wouldn’t a Tim Pawlenty or Mike Huckabee be better positioned to do well with those voters?

Romney may well be the frontrunner now. If he is, then his road will be the toughest any frontrunner has faced in sometime.

A Plea for Religious Tolerance in the Bible Belt

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:46:00 +0000

This blog was dedicated at the outset to covering both politics and religion. Yet I've neglected to write much about religion recently. Today, I want to start making up for that oversight by providing an interesting perspective on religion that has been seldom offered on this blog. The post poses a challenge to how many Americans think of religion. I can guarantee that it will be worth your time. Without further ado...

Hello Gadson Review readers!

First, a thank you to Marcus himself for his continuous brilliantly stated insight into the current state of the world’s politics. A second thank you to Marcus for letting me invade with my own $0.02.

Clearly, Marcus is an expert on politics, including the numerous tangents that the subject brings. This will be a bit of a departure from politics, delving into the realm of religion, which for me, always stirs interesting perspectives.

Where Marcus and I live is in the heart of the Bible belt. There are signs everywhere that say “Jesus.” When I first arrived in the Delta and saw these in peoples’ yards, I thought there were so many people trying to express their frustrations in the world. I could just imagine people saying “Oh, I had such a bad day. Jesus.” People couldn’t actually be serious with those, right? Boy was I wrong. So that led to a fascinating investigation on the mentality of religion and philosophy. I was born and raised in a Buddhist household, which I believe is much more a way of living life than it is a centralized religion. What Buddhism teaches is how to rid yourself of any misery, any sorrow, any suffering, and to live a truly happy life. Of course, there are much more sophistications to the teachings than I am expressing here, but this is the general underlying philosophy. It is a universal language that we can all speak, and thus reminds me that we’re all equals in this world: we all suffer, and we are all trying to find a way out of it. Most of the time, Buddhists find this in meditation and learning from the different Buddhas’ and Bodhisattvas’ teachings: nothing is permanent, for change is the only constant.

But I get sideways looks for being different. Do Buddhists believe in God? Why don’t Buddhists believe in God? As a matter of fact, Deltans, I do believe in God, but in a different sense. I believe that there is a God in everyone, that everyone has the power to have unconditional love for each other, the wholesome goodness and purity of the heart, and the power to change the world. For Buddhists, everyone and anyone can become a God (or a Buddha/Bodhisattva). It requires a lot of work (over many lifetimes of reincarnation, which is another subject for discussion at a later time), but it is possible. So, there are such things as Christian Buddhists. Or Catholic Buddhists. Or just Buddhists.

Thus, I challenge the Deltans of the world to look into the greater philosophy of the world, look past the sign in the front lawn that declares a dedication to only one inspirational person, and put that dedication into each and every being. It’s amazing what we would all be able to see: the beauty in everyone and everything.

Margaret Mou, guest writer. 3/6/2011.

Obama and the Middle East Protests

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:36:00 +0000

Scarcely a day goes by without reports of another Arab country in open rebellion against its leaders. A narrative has emerged which says that Obama has been entirely too passive in the face of this momentous opportunity to encourage democracy in the Middle East. Other commentators have accused Obama as being typically weak-kneed. However, this criticism is unfair, at least to a large extent.

Most outside observers wish to see these countries develop into democracies. Yet, America becoming visibly associated with Democratic protest movements in the Middle East at a time when America is unpopular in that region is not the best policy. Indeed, America is not much more popular there than it was during the Bush administration. A majority of Arabs are discouraged about American policy in the region, and a majority thinks a nuclear Iran would be a good thing.

President Obama had a few options here, all of which had their own shortcomings. First, he could have spoken out strongly in favor of protests at the outset. But as I have already demonstrated, he would conflated democratic protesters with an unpopular American government in the region and very likely hurt the protesters in the eyes of Arabs sitting on the fence.

More importantly, speaking out strongly and demanding that leaders step down without concrete actions would arguably have made the US look weak. Many observers would then say that when the US says a leader should step down, it will not back its demands up. As it happens, Obama has taken concrete measures. He has imposed sanctions on Gadhafi.

Second, Obama could have sent in American troops to topple regimes to insure a democratic transition. But it would not be enough simply to deploy soldiers to dislodge the dictators. The US would need a plan for the aftermath. Occupations, unless they are exceptionally short, are never simple. The US would need a plan to build up basic infrastructure and institutions and fight terrorists so a new government can inherit a reasonably stable situation. That could well take years and a substantial investment of money and resources. Do fiscal conservatives really want to spend money on overseas adventures? Would it be prudent when the US is already fighting in Afghanistan?

This all ignores the most important question of all: is a democracy in the Middle East in our interests? Interestingly, several conservative critics of the administration have concluded that it is not, at least not at present. Dick Cheney for example believes that the US should have stood by Hosni Mubark in Egypt. Thomas Sowell is also skeptical of democracy in the Middle East, writing:

The fact that Egyptians or others in the Middle East and elsewhere want freedom does not mean that they are ready for freedom. Everyone wants freedom for himself. Even the Nazis wanted to be free to be Nazis. They just didn't want anybody else to be free.

There is very little sign of tolerance in the Middle East, even among fellow Muslims with different political or religious views, and all too many signs of gross intolerance toward people who are not Muslims.

Freedom and democracy cannot be simply conferred on anyone. Both have preconditions, and even nations that are free and democratic today took centuries to get there.

It is possible to see how democracies in these countries could be hostile to US interests. Since so many Arabs have negative views of the US, any elected leadership would have to echo these sentiments, at least to some extent. This could mean fewer basing rights in Arab countries for US soldiers or less help fighting terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. It could also mean that regimes that tacitly tolerated Israel will have to become virulently anti-Israel in their policies to satisfy a public that disdains Israel and Jews in general all too often.

Perhaps the US would benefit from being seen to support a move to democracy. Arabs might feel as if the US is working to protect their human rights and dignity and as a result form governments friendly to American interests. However that is at all clear. The right course of action now is hard to discern amid so many options and possibilities. If President Obama has vacillated during the uprisings, it is because there was so much to consider.

Chris Christie's Logic on Education

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:19:00 +0000

Governors in states across the country are fighting with public sector unions. Chris Christie, the combative Governor of New Jersey was one of the first to gain prominence last year by taking on his state’s teachers’ union. He proposed freezing salaries and increasing the amount teachers were required to contribute to their healthcare. A common routine he does stuck out:

“The argument you heard most vociferously from the teachers’ union,” Christie says, “was that this was the greatest assault on public education in the history of New Jersey.” Here the fleshy governor lumbers a few steps toward the audience and lowers his voice for effect. “Now, do you really think that your child is now stressed out and unable to learn because they know that their poor teacher has to pay 1½ percent of their salary for their health care benefits? Have any of your children come home — any of them — and said, ‘Mom.’ ” Pause. “ ‘Dad.’ ” Another pause. “ ‘Please. Stop the madness.’ ”

By this point the audience is starting to titter, but Christie remains steadfastly somber in his role as the beseeching student. “‘Just pay for my teacher’s health benefits,’ ” he pleads, “‘and I’ll get A’s, I swear. But I just cannot take the stress that’s being presented by a 1½ percent contribution to health benefits.’” As the crowd breaks into appreciative guffaws, Christie waits a theatrical moment, then slams his point home. “Now, you’re all laughing, right?” he says. “But this is the crap I have to hear.”

Sure, the rhetoric from the teacher’s union is hyperbolic here. And it is certainly unlikely that students come home complaining about their teacher’s increased healthcare costs. But the fact that children don’t come home to their parents and complain about certain policies that are enacted is insufficient grounds to believe that the policy has no negative implications. I doubt second graders went home in distress about excessive use of leverage at Lehman brothers, or the proliferation of sub-prime mortgages. It is inconceivable that those students would have raised a peep when the glass-steagal act (which mandated a separation between investment banking and normal banking) was repealed. Yet in all of these cases, it is at least arguable that the things in question had negative effects for the economy.

Granted, Christie most likely means this at least partly in jest (one hopes). So let’s consider his implicit assumption that restraining or reducing teacher compensation doesn’t constitute an assault on education, and that it actually will not have a demonstrable effect on educational outcomes. This is hard to believe, particularly for challenging rural and inner-city school environments. These are schools where the stakes are highest because of achievement gaps between poor minorities and wealthier whites. Putting effective teachers in the classroom would be a solution.

Indeed, Los Angeles found that providing top-quartile teachers as opposed to bottom-quartile teachers for four years in a row would actually eliminate the achievement gap.

Of course, kids in challenging schools are not likely to get these teachers. One way to attract such teachers would be to offer better compensation including strong benefits. When pay is frozen and benefits slashed, teachers who already feel like they have challenging jobs might look elsewhere for employment, especially if they have other skills or credentials. Perhaps the biggest risk is that talented young people thinking of careers will choose not to become teachers when they see that compensation (already low relative to other professions) will go still lower. That raises the very real possibility that High School students in certain parts of the country might go home to their parents saying “Our school couldn’t find a certified physics teacher. It looks like I won’t be able to take that class this year.”

In short, I think Christie’s assessment of his proposed actions on education deserve a more sober and less slapstick treatment.

How Should We Punish Criminals?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:50:00 +0000

If two people commit the same crime, should they receive different punishments? The justice system has wrestled with that question for thousands of years. I thought Slate came out with an interesting article this week which suggested that people should be punished differently based on how they experience punishment.

The story came from an incident in the Netherlands where a large man complained that his imprisonment in a small cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The author then goes on to cite the beliefs of a law professor who believes that subjective experiences of punishment should help determine sentences. The system would work something like this: one man who is resilient and would fare well in prison gets five years for a crime, while another man who is less resilient and would fare poorly might get three years even though he committed the same crime. The idea is that three years for the less resilient man might be the same as five for the more resilient one.

There is a certain logic to this line of reasoning. After all, we do give people different punishments for the same crime. For example, we might punish a first time offender more leniently. Or we may say that out of two people who committed a given crime, one had more mitigating factors that merit a lesser punishment. We give different punishments based upon intent. One man who commits a premeditated murder may get the death penalty. But another who killed in the heat of passion would likely get a significant prison sentence instead.

Still, there are considerable problems with punishing differently based upon how different
people experience their sentences. First, such a system would invariably run into practical difficulties. How would we determine how people actually experience punishment? There would always be a great incentive to pretend that an environment is harsh, or that going to prison is particularly awful. In fact, I’d predict that if we did take into account how people experience punishment when meting out sentences, pretty much every convicted criminal would make himself out to be unfit for prison. In addition, although some people might initially have a tougher time adapting to prison, perhaps they would adapt and not actually have a stronger reaction to the vast majority of their sentences.

I suspect courts would turn to psychologists and psychiatrists to distinguish between fakers and those with real problems. Who would likely be savvy enough to fool a psychiatrist, or hire one to put in a favorable evaluation? The wealthy of course. Moreover, it is perfectly conceivable that the wealthy may actually have the hardest time adapting to prison. They are used to a life of luxury on the outside and being at the top of social pecking order. They have few or no friends who have been to prison. Having to wear orange jumpsuits and eat lackluster (at best) food would be quite the shock. Almost assuredly, it is harder to go from a mansion to prison than it is to go from the projects to prison.

And so that raises the very real specter that wealthy people would systematically receive shorter prison sentences. Of course, in many cases they already do. But this would exacerbate the problem. A justice system that is perceived as favoring the wealthy and punishing the poor unduly would not easily inspire confidence from the average American. So that raises another question: assuming taking experiences into account could be done fairly, which is more important: real fairness or perceived fairness?

Weighing in on Obama's SOTU

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:12:00 +0000

Time to weigh in on the state of the union!

First, I thought the seating arrangement was interesting and welcome. Republicans and Democrats sat among each other. I think it was a nice symbol of national unity after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. It also hints at a possibly less partisan future when politicians toe the party line less and think for themselves. Instead of standing up and clapping (or sitting) in unison with members of their party, politicians were looking at members of the party and considering their reactions. Let’s hope the political process reflects this in the future.

Now let’s look at the substance of the speech. I thought Obama did an effective job taking a more “centrist” tack and sounding responsible. He proposed a five year spending freeze on discretionary spending. He made a nod towards lowering the business tax rate, and talked about reorganizing and consolidating government agencies, all things that Republicans and Democrats can support.

The biggest story of course will be what happens over the next few months as contentious debates over raising the debt ceiling or repealing healthcare are held. For now, Obama looks to be in a decent position.

A New Way Forward on Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:57:00 +0000

Republicans will try to repeal healthcare this year although they will not succeed with President Obama still in the White House. But perhaps some beneficial changes will be considered to the original healthcare plan.

What I would suggest is allowing people to take catastrophic plans, something I proposed on this blog in 2009 during the height of the healthcare debate. Catastrophic plans typically pay for big medical expenses such as open heart surgery while leaving patients to pay for routine care such as check-ups and medication out of pocket. As one might expect, such plans are much cheaper than comprehensive plans. In 2009, the average single person could expect to pay $4,824 for a year’s worth of insurance. By contrast, a 33 year old in good health could get a decent catastrophic plan for just $1560 with a deductible of only $1000.

To be sure, there are some who cannot afford routine medical care. To help them, government could give everyone a health savings account and contribute say $1,000 to it every year.

This amount of money would allow patients to get check-ups, tooth cleanings, basic screenings etc. Patients would be allowed to keep any unused money in their accounts and use it for future medical care. This would be particularly beneficial for young people, who usually only require check-ups and medication for the occasional cold or flu. By the time they are older and need to pay for more expensive screenings, or basic surgeries they would have a decent amount of money saved up.

Of course, this leaves problems of its own. Most young people would likely choose the catastrophic plan leaving traditional insurance companies or government with high risk, elderly patients. But since government would save so much money on the young and middle aged, it could easily accommodate the elderly and sickly in a program like Medicare. In 2005, Medicaid spent about $5671 per recipient. The cost has surely risen a bit with inflation. Imagine government saving over $3,000 per patient. Surely, extending catastrophic plans and health savings accounts to the uninsured would be much cheaper than the current plan to expand Medicaid. It is easy to imagine using some of the money to give the elderly extra to help afford higher premiums.

Moreover, this proposal could end up generating substantial economic growth as companies employing a lot of young or middle aged people (most companies) had much lower healthcare costs and more money they could use to hire workers or research new products. This in turn would leave more people with the means to afford their own care and generate more tax revenue to help cover healthcare costs for government.

No healthcare proposal is perfect. But this would be something everyone should be able to support. Democrats who want everyone to have access to healthcare could do it. Republicans who want to rein in the costs would be able to do that. Both sides could take credit for a pro-business initiative that helps create jobs. Let’s hope lawmakers consider this change to Obamacare instead of engaging in a long, divisive battle over repeal.

The Tea Party and Recent Shootings in Arizona

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:00:00 +0000

At the moment, Congresswoman Giffords remains in critical condition although doctors are optimistic about her prognosis. Meanwhile, there are other victims including a district court judge that have not received as much coverage.

At the same time, there has been a debate about whether the attack reflects on the tea party or heated rhetoric in general. I think the case for such an interpretation of the event is fairly thin. We have learned that the shooter has a hodgepodge of views, and that a former classmate thought he was left wing. The strongest interpretation to me seems that he was simply crazy and deranged.

I therefore think it’s a mistake to pin any blame for the shooting on the tea party. If the shooter himself did not hold views in line with the tea party, how can tea party rhetoric have caused the shooting? Moreover, as many conservative commentators have pointed out, there have been no shortage of violent metaphors used by liberals and Democrats.

I wonder if it’s true as well that partisan rhetoric is at its most intense or polarized. People saying so remind me of those who claim that politics is uniquely negative and personal today. But remember the 1824 election when John Quincy Adam’s supporters insinuated that Andrew Jackson’s wife was a whore and Andrew Jackson’s supporters claimed that Adams had pimped for the Czar in Russia. Or the 1800 election when supporters of John Adams claimed that Thomas Jefferson would ban the Bible.

Politics has always been heated and prone to extreme charges. The only difference now is a 24 hour media and an internet that gives such charges more publicity. I am not ready to join the school of thought that says are politics have declined (from what heights I am not sure).

Is President Obama a Christian?

noreply@blogger.com (Marcus Alexander Gadson) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 05:00:00 +0000

The controversy over President Obama’s religious faith simply refuses to die. Look at the following:

The question: "Which, if any, of the following people do you believe are Christians?" It was thumbs up for former President George W. Bush (75 percent) and GOP lightning rod Sarah Palin (66 percent), but thumbs down for Obama (41 percent), as well as media superstars Glenn Beck (27 percent) and Oprah Winfrey (19 percent).

Among the pastors who said they were Republicans, 23 percent said Obama is a Christian, a stark contrast with the 80 percent of pastors who identified themselves as Democrats. Among "independents," 52 percent called Obama a Christian.

This raises the question of what exactly it means to be a Christian. There are some core tenets. One has to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that his death on the cross constituted an offer of pardon for a person’s sins, and that accepting Christ as lord and savior earns him a place in the heaven. More than issues like transubstantiation—whether communion bread turns into the body of Christ at communion—or whether women should be ordained or how certain passages of the Bible should be interpreted, a belief in Christ is the most important belief of a Christian.

So does Obama believe this? In an interview with Christianity Today, Obama said “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” With this answer, we know that Obama professes to believe in the core tenet of Christianity. The only grounds then, for not thinking that Obama is a true Christian is that Obama is somehow not being genuine when he gives answers like that. But there is no way to know. Whether Obama actually believes this is between him and God, and it seems like we should give him the same benefit of a doubt the pastors gave George W. Bush in this survey.

Of course, this is also significant politically. Many of America’s voters are Christians themselves, and it is an open question how likely they are to vote for someone who does not share their faith. To the extent belief that Obama is not a Christian remains widespread, how many votes will this lose him? It is hard to believe that it would cost him an election. After all, there were those same rumors in 2008, but Obama was able to prevail. Moreover, those Christians most likely to believe that Obama is not tend to be Republicans, who will presumably vote for the Republican nominee any way.