Thursday, September 02, 2004
Response to Arnold (and a Response to the Response)
Matt, a friend of mine from highschool and one hoopy frood who knows where his towel is at, emails me to 1) mention that haloscan spat his comment out (if anyone else has anything too long to post or haloscan problems, just email me (jody.neel AT gmail.com) and I'll post it presuming you're not a spam bot) and 2) that while Arnold made a great speech, Bush is not the kind of Republican described by the governator.
Matt followed this up with the following a witty little play on the governator's speech (I've added a little formatting that may have been lost in the email).
Why? Because the voices in my head tell me too.
Ok, I'm kidding. Here's my real reasons (but still supplied by those voices) responding on a point by point basis. (original point bolded, my response in regular font)
1. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, why vote for a Republican who doesn't read newspapers or polls, and pretty clearly disdains anyone who disagrees with him?
This is an internally flawed point. In a democracy, the government is held accountable through the voting process. If I still have a choice to vote or not vote for Bush, then Bush is accountable. Newspapers nor polls hold a politician accountable. Elections do. (Besides Bush does poll, and while I disagree on the disdain part, again how does this relate to accountability to the people?)
Arnold's original point on holding the government accountable to the people relates to the bureaucratic elements of government which are not accountable to the people. Whether the EPA, OSHA, or the FDA, these bureaucracies pass regulations which have all the same effect as a law passed by the legislature. However, these bureaucrats do not stand for election, are virtually unfireable, and thus are never held to account by the people.
One of the best things that Bush has done, in my libertarian opinion, is dramatically reduce the cost of new regulations (link). With the regulation route severely curtailed, those with power in government become again primarily the legislature and the president, both of whom are indeed held accountable.
2. If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, why vote for a man who's relied on his family's wealth and connections his whole life?
Again the logic eludes me. Is this an assertion that the the use of one's wealth and connections is the same as stereotyping?
And if this is a problem, how does it negatively differentiate Bush from Kerry?
3. If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, why vote for a man who is spending your money for years and years to come?
This criticism isn't clear. Is this a criticism of a) it the level of spending proposed by the Bush administration or b) the growth of the deficit?
If a) then I too criticize Bush for the increased outlays for health care, the NEA, and the like. However, Kerry has promised to spend more, so Bush is the lesser of two evils (or lesser of two lessers as the case may be).
If b), then also being a Keynesian, I'm ok with running a deficit to get out of a recession. However, as we appear to be on the road to wellville, spending growth should be curtailed for a while. Hopefully, that's what Bush will outline tonight. However, continuing the theme of the lesser of two lessers, Kerry has proposed more new spending than his tax hike would cover, so he'll increase the deficit more than Bush. (Side note, some have noted the possibility of creating legislative gridlock by having Kerry in the whitehouse and the Republicans in Congress ala 94. I have thoughts on that as well, but I don't believe that was the situation Matt was envisioning.)
Of course thanks to the tax cuts, I do get to spend more of my money and as revenues are actually up since the cuts (link), it was literally a win-win situation (I got to keep more of my own money and the government got more revenues through extra growth).
4. If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, why vote for a man who refuses to fund his own education initiatives?
Again, I don't find this to be a coherent point. Schwarzengovernor was referring to the provision in NCLB where standardized testing is used to determine funding (I'm simplifying greatly). This indeed holds the educational system to account as long as funding is greater than zero.
Now I believe that Matt saw educational accountability and was reminded of the common critcism that Bush is not fully funding NCLB and somehow linked the two together (I'm assuming the "refuses to fund" charge was made in haste). However, this more typical criticism is also flawed. The source of the criticism is that the original bill authorized a high maximum spending level that has not been reached. However, the states don't seem to need the extra money allocated by NCLB (link), so there's been no need to increase funding levels to the maximum.
5. If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, why vote for a man who is doing everything he can to shift power to the executive branch of this country's democracy, while giving us a reputation for torturing prisoners internationally?
(The second half of this criticism is coherent, but wrong. The first is incoherent.)
While I don't think the first point is valid (extra power to the executive branch? Was there a newGulf of Tonkin resolution that I'm unaware of?), if it were happening, how does it diminish this country's level of democracy? The Presidency is still an elected office. Now if power were being shifted to the judicial branch, which isn't elected, then there would indeed be a decrease in the country's level of democracy as more power would be concentrated in an unelected virtually unremovable office.
On the second point, Abu Ghraib (which is what I presume Matt is referring to) was a bad thing. And very bad things happen in war (I hear sadists tend to be drawn to such assignments). However, I think Bushs response to Abu Ghraib highlights the differences between democracy and thuggocracies, i.e., we're prosecuting those involved, whereas Hussein rewarded those who tortured. A clear difference in responses.
And why must the Bush administration prosecute those involved? (Excluding the decency of the man, something which I don't think I'll persuade Matt of). Because as a democracy, the US is holding Bush accountable for his actions on Nov 2 and if he doesn't react in a way that the public thinks is appropriate, then his butt is canned. That's democracy in action.
While this may seem a little panglossian, as far as democracy promotion goes, Abu Ghraib and the resulting prosecutions may have helped our cause.
6. If you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, why vote for a man who took us on a two-year adventure in Iraq that hasn't helped the war on terror at all?
(This criticism is coherent, but wrong).
Well, I do believe it helped. Libya disarmed. We've got a kickin base to apply pressure to the big 3 (Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia). A man who lent training in the use of chemical and biological weapons to al Qaeda is removed. We're draining the terror swamp (aka the flypaper strategy) by forcing terrorists to attack our soldiers instead of our civilians. But most importantly, we're in the process of creating the first Arab democracy. More so, it's a democracy that appears to embracing tolerance of differences. This is a vitally important step in the insertion of the democracy/tolerance meme into the Arab world, which in turn is the most important step to actually eliminating arab terrorism.
Now, I would be interested in hearing Matt's thoughts on what the goals of the WoT should be as they're apparently divergent from mine. If anyone wants to know my thoughts on what should be the goals of the WoR, they line up very closely align with the goals espoused by Den Beste.
Comments(0) |
Matt followed this up with the following a witty little play on the governator's speech (I've added a little formatting that may have been lost in the email).
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, why vote for a Republican who doesn't read newspapers or polls, and pretty clearly disdains anyone who disagrees with him?I promised Matt a response, so here it is.
If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, why vote for a man who's relied on his family's wealth and connections his whole life?
If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, why vote for a man who is spending your money for years and years to come?
If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, why vote for a man who refuses to fund his own education initiatives?
If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, why vote for a man who is doing everything he can to shift power to the executive branch of this country's democracy, while giving us a reputation for torturing prisoners internationally?
If you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, why vote for a man who took us on a two-year adventure in Iraq that hasn't helped the war on terror at all?
Why? Because the voices in my head tell me too.
Ok, I'm kidding. Here's my real reasons (but still supplied by those voices) responding on a point by point basis. (original point bolded, my response in regular font)
1. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, why vote for a Republican who doesn't read newspapers or polls, and pretty clearly disdains anyone who disagrees with him?
This is an internally flawed point. In a democracy, the government is held accountable through the voting process. If I still have a choice to vote or not vote for Bush, then Bush is accountable. Newspapers nor polls hold a politician accountable. Elections do. (Besides Bush does poll, and while I disagree on the disdain part, again how does this relate to accountability to the people?)
Arnold's original point on holding the government accountable to the people relates to the bureaucratic elements of government which are not accountable to the people. Whether the EPA, OSHA, or the FDA, these bureaucracies pass regulations which have all the same effect as a law passed by the legislature. However, these bureaucrats do not stand for election, are virtually unfireable, and thus are never held to account by the people.
One of the best things that Bush has done, in my libertarian opinion, is dramatically reduce the cost of new regulations (link). With the regulation route severely curtailed, those with power in government become again primarily the legislature and the president, both of whom are indeed held accountable.
2. If you believe that a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, why vote for a man who's relied on his family's wealth and connections his whole life?
Again the logic eludes me. Is this an assertion that the the use of one's wealth and connections is the same as stereotyping?
And if this is a problem, how does it negatively differentiate Bush from Kerry?
3. If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, why vote for a man who is spending your money for years and years to come?
This criticism isn't clear. Is this a criticism of a) it the level of spending proposed by the Bush administration or b) the growth of the deficit?
If a) then I too criticize Bush for the increased outlays for health care, the NEA, and the like. However, Kerry has promised to spend more, so Bush is the lesser of two evils (or lesser of two lessers as the case may be).
If b), then also being a Keynesian, I'm ok with running a deficit to get out of a recession. However, as we appear to be on the road to wellville, spending growth should be curtailed for a while. Hopefully, that's what Bush will outline tonight. However, continuing the theme of the lesser of two lessers, Kerry has proposed more new spending than his tax hike would cover, so he'll increase the deficit more than Bush. (Side note, some have noted the possibility of creating legislative gridlock by having Kerry in the whitehouse and the Republicans in Congress ala 94. I have thoughts on that as well, but I don't believe that was the situation Matt was envisioning.)
Of course thanks to the tax cuts, I do get to spend more of my money and as revenues are actually up since the cuts (link), it was literally a win-win situation (I got to keep more of my own money and the government got more revenues through extra growth).
4. If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, why vote for a man who refuses to fund his own education initiatives?
Again, I don't find this to be a coherent point. Schwarzengovernor was referring to the provision in NCLB where standardized testing is used to determine funding (I'm simplifying greatly). This indeed holds the educational system to account as long as funding is greater than zero.
Now I believe that Matt saw educational accountability and was reminded of the common critcism that Bush is not fully funding NCLB and somehow linked the two together (I'm assuming the "refuses to fund" charge was made in haste). However, this more typical criticism is also flawed. The source of the criticism is that the original bill authorized a high maximum spending level that has not been reached. However, the states don't seem to need the extra money allocated by NCLB (link), so there's been no need to increase funding levels to the maximum.
5. If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world, why vote for a man who is doing everything he can to shift power to the executive branch of this country's democracy, while giving us a reputation for torturing prisoners internationally?
(The second half of this criticism is coherent, but wrong. The first is incoherent.)
While I don't think the first point is valid (extra power to the executive branch? Was there a newGulf of Tonkin resolution that I'm unaware of?), if it were happening, how does it diminish this country's level of democracy? The Presidency is still an elected office. Now if power were being shifted to the judicial branch, which isn't elected, then there would indeed be a decrease in the country's level of democracy as more power would be concentrated in an unelected virtually unremovable office.
On the second point, Abu Ghraib (which is what I presume Matt is referring to) was a bad thing. And very bad things happen in war (I hear sadists tend to be drawn to such assignments). However, I think Bushs response to Abu Ghraib highlights the differences between democracy and thuggocracies, i.e., we're prosecuting those involved, whereas Hussein rewarded those who tortured. A clear difference in responses.
And why must the Bush administration prosecute those involved? (Excluding the decency of the man, something which I don't think I'll persuade Matt of). Because as a democracy, the US is holding Bush accountable for his actions on Nov 2 and if he doesn't react in a way that the public thinks is appropriate, then his butt is canned. That's democracy in action.
While this may seem a little panglossian, as far as democracy promotion goes, Abu Ghraib and the resulting prosecutions may have helped our cause.
6. If you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, why vote for a man who took us on a two-year adventure in Iraq that hasn't helped the war on terror at all?
(This criticism is coherent, but wrong).
Well, I do believe it helped. Libya disarmed. We've got a kickin base to apply pressure to the big 3 (Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia). A man who lent training in the use of chemical and biological weapons to al Qaeda is removed. We're draining the terror swamp (aka the flypaper strategy) by forcing terrorists to attack our soldiers instead of our civilians. But most importantly, we're in the process of creating the first Arab democracy. More so, it's a democracy that appears to embracing tolerance of differences. This is a vitally important step in the insertion of the democracy/tolerance meme into the Arab world, which in turn is the most important step to actually eliminating arab terrorism.
Now, I would be interested in hearing Matt's thoughts on what the goals of the WoT should be as they're apparently divergent from mine. If anyone wants to know my thoughts on what should be the goals of the WoR, they line up very closely align with the goals espoused by Den Beste.
Comments(0) |
