The More Things Change . . .

I've been re-reading Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. I can't remember when I last read it--somewhere between 2001-2006 according to my own reading list (right side of this blog). Though it was written in the first half of the last century (that sounds so weird), around the mid to late 1940's, so much of it seems pertinent today. There are a few things that sound jarring to the 21st century ear. His discussion about marriage, for instance, would get him booted from Cambridge University in a New York minute, particularly his reference to same sex attraction. Nonetheless, I believe it's absurd to judge people in our past, distant or recent, by today's standards. Better to let their words be understood and respected in the context, era, morals, mores, or their day.

On Forgiveness

His Words

My Response

My marginal notes mention the Covington Catholic High School melee that took place earlier this year at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  and Donald Trump (I'll link a couple articles below for context). Trump was penciled in later since I re-read this passage on the day the Mueller Report essentially exonerated him of the so-called Russian collusion charge that was leveled at him shortly after he was elected president. The question Lewis poses here ("Suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite as bad as was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that . . . '") needs no response, since we all know what the answer is. This chapter is written in the context of the Biblical injunction that we "love our enemies." Nothing further needs to be said.

The page I copied above strikes me as profoundly prescient. Surely the poisonous political climate brought about by a confluence of social media and Donald Trump is historically unprecedented. But Lewis seems to be describing the 21st century politics to a tee: "fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Was it as bad as that in the 1940's? Maybe it's true, what another wise man said, "There's nothing new under the sun." This book was written last century but seems indistinguishable from today. 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Links

"The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story" (The Atlantic)

Our Long National Hysteria (National Review Online editorial)

Direct Democracy Sounds Good, But . . .

There's been murmuring lately among the Democrats about the need to abolish the Electoral College. 

Here's what Elizabeth Warren said the other day at a Town Hall: "“In a general election, presidential candidates don’t come to places like Mississippi. They come to places like California and Massachusetts, because we’re not the battleground states. My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is have national voting, and that means getting rid of the Electoral College … every vote counts.”

She seems to be contradicting herself. By acknowledging that presidential candidates wouldn't go to areas that are less populated, she was essentially arguing for the electoral college. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it: "The Electoral College helps check polarization by forcing presidential candidates to campaign in competitive states across the country, instead of spending all their time trying to motivate turnout in populous partisan strongholds."

Warren's "every vote counts" mantra sounds good in theory until you pull back the curtain and examine the implications. The Founders’ reasoning for setting up a “mediated representative government” as opposed to “direct democracy” makes sense when you recognize that a direct democracy inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority (see On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, for instance). 

The Federalist (linked below) clarifies:

“Pure democracy” is just another phrase for “mob rule.” Dictatorship of the majority means 51 percent of the citizenry rule the other 49 percent. That minority has no rights except those the condescending majority grants. It works well for those in the 51 percent, not so much for those in the 49. Plato knew it, and James Madison, who knew his Plato, did too. Plato and Madison both recognized that justice and liberty for the minority is possible only when power is shared between groups in society.

I think people like Elizabeth Warren and others on the political left like the idea of "every vote counts" understand demography and ideology are connected. Large, urban, coastal states (like California) have a denser population and tend to vote Democratic. The reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College was because these left-leaning states pulled the lever for her. As Senator Warren put it. "presidential candidates  don't come to places like Mississippi. The come to places like California."

Exactly. Why would Hillary waste her time trying to gin up votes from smaller states who lean right when she can scoop up the majority in Democratic-leaning states? Answer: she wouldn't. Hence, the wisdom inherent in the Electoral College.

Sources:

"The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We're Not a Democracy," by Donna Carol Voss

"Targeting the Electoral College" (Wall Street Journal editorial, March 20, 2019)

A Modest Attempt to Understand Socialism

I've been thinking about recent conversations on socialism I've had with friends and family. I don't want to get everyone upset or riled--this is not about "who's right/who's wrong" or whatever. I just wanted to toss these ideas around and get some feedback. I’m hoping maybe we can all be nice and hear each other out without getting defensive.  

In a recent Wall Street Journal Letters to the Editor, there was a letter responding to a column about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialistic policies. I thought the letter writer’s distinction of Socialism and Social Democracy (or is it Democratic Socialism?) was helpful:

“One widely accepted definition of socialism is a political and economic philosophy advocating that the entire means of production, distribution and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole, i.e., the state….On the other hand, a social democracy is a political, social and economic system that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of liberal democratic politics and a capitalist economy.”

First, a "bigger picture" comment: The issue it seems to me has to do with benevolence and compassion. For instance, at the end of one recent conversation on this issue, a friend said, “Just because we’re middle class and comfortable doesn’t mean we can forget about everyone else.” Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we could say that the Democratic Socialist vision that we've been squabbling over could be viewed as a sincere desire to make life easier for everyone, which is the point my friend has been making. So at its core, perhaps we could concede there's an in underlying good (social justice) to their vision. 

On the other hand, while its critics may concede the need for a safety net, they still see a trajectory towards ultimate government control of the economy. In other words, where does this "goodness" end? The famous saying, "The only problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money," seems not just pithy but true. So to critics, there’s an underlying flaw to the Democratic socialist vision. 

All of the "good" things we've been hearing about from progressives (Universal Basic Income, Universal Preschool, Free College, Medicare for All) and from the Democratic Socialists (a greenhouse-gas free economy by 2030, overhauling transportation systems, guaranteed federal jobs for everyone, to name a few of the ideas proposed in the Green New Deal), suggest ultimate government control over much of the economy. How can it not? Even Kamala Harris, in talking about Medicare for All, admitted she’d like to see the end of private insurance (I think she has since tried to walk back that comment, but it’s revelatory, nevertheless). So even though I agree in theory that Democratic Socialism is different from "actual" Marxist Socialism, it still represents a trajectory towards a less free society. 

Second, while analogies are not perfect, sometimes I find it helps me visualize bigger picture issues by comparing them to smaller-scale scenarios. Here are a few "what if" scenarios that I've tried to envision by applying socialist principles on a smaller-scale.

So, what if socialist-type policies were applied to: 

Academics: Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, training, parental support, etc. So let's level the playing field and redistribute the points of A-students equally among the rest of the students. This way, everyone at least passes. 

My comment: Even though this situation seems to apply the Social Democratic philosophy defined above (“social intervention that promotes social justice”), I'm guessing that most of us would reject this argument. If I stayed up late studying, or worked with a tutor, etc. and because of my extra efforts, I received an "A" in my class, and another student (maybe less fortunate, has to work two jobs, grew up in a single-parent household, whatever) did not put in the same effort and received an "F"—it’s inherently unjust for my hard-earned points to be redistributed, no matter how bad I feel for the other person. 

Shopping: Imagine going shopping, spending $100 on food for your family, then at the door being stopped and having 70% of your purchases redistributed to a line of people less fortunate than you. Not everyone has the same life experiences, background, opportunities, advantages, etc. So let’s level the playing field.

My Comment: This again feels unfair for the same reasons I listed above. We don't visualize it in such a "microcosmic" way, but isn't this, at its core, what we're saying when we advocate for a social intervention promoting social justice? One way or another, a certain percentage of what I earned (grades, dollars), is taken by the government to help the less fortunate? 

These two hypothetical situations illustrate on a small scale what the government wants to do on a grand scale. The way we currently understand the “safety net,” it’s really only the truly destitute that we should be talking about. But that’s not what I hear being proposed by the progressive left in general and the Social Democrats in particular. More and more, we’re hearing about “entitlements," and not just for the destitute—for everyone. A safety net is good, necessary--it's the role of government. But where does any of this end? What if the next "good thing" the government determines everyone is entitled to is what we might describe as "luxuries"--a car, a cell phone, a laptop, a paid vacation? Eventually, the 70% or 90% of the top 1% earners above a certain amount won’t be enough, and we’ll all be expected to foot the bill. How many of us would gladly work 40 or 50 or 60 hour weeks only to have the government skim 70% or 90% of our pay checks? Even if somehow we "get something" back (free health care, etc.), most of us would resist. Maybe this is another discussion, but I think this kind of top-down society goes against the grain of what makes America unique, at least at its core. 

Here are some final random questions that I've been thinking about:

• Why should the government decide the "greater good"?
• Do we really want the government taking our hard-earned dollars for a greater good the government has decreed (beyond the safety net)?
• What if I don't want my money going towards one or more of these "greater goods"? What if I prefer my money go to a charity, a church, another cause? 
• What if rather than coerced taxing the government mandated that all people earning a salary be required to give a certain percentage of their paychecks to the charity of their choice? Government decreed charity? Most people would recoil. Yet that, to me, is what we're talking about. 
• What's the difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism?