Mark Twain Wouldn't Like George W. Bush

Ok, yeah, "it's been a while" (well, since I last posted). But here's something "interesting" I wrote about Mark Twain's thoughts on Iraq:

One hundred and two years ago Mark Twain identified the attitude that the Bush Administration currently holds toward the Arab world. The essay in which Twain advanced his discovery was entitled “To the Person Sitting in Darkness.”
Twain commented on various actions taken by Western powers in defense of their imperial possessions. Westerns justified these actions because they brought “civilization” the world’s backward peoples. This “civilization,” said Twain, was a “pie” full of unarguably good attributes like live, liberty, and mercy. Most backward peoples accepted the pie. After all, who wouldn’t want such a gift? The only problem was that sometimes the backward peoples, those sitting in darkness, didn’t quite cooperate in taking their new “civilization.” When that happened, such as when missionaries were killed in China or Filipinos resisted the American annexation of their islands, the lid of the pie of “civilization” came off and its other half emerged—imperial brute force and oppression. This, commented Twain, is what the customer who buys civilization actually receives.
Twain said this as a man who truly loved and valued Western civilization. However, he also saw the destructive tendencies of the West when it foists itself upon the rest of the world. The reaction of the person sitting in darkness, he argued, is to proposition the following: “There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him” and then “kills him to get his land.”
Rightly or wrongly, this is the way much of the world perceives the United State’s actions, and, again rightly or wrongly, this is the way the United States has acted since the time of Mark Twain. Iraq is only the latest in a long line of foreign interventions where we have liberated the peoples of the world and proceeded to impose our will on them. Sometimes the U.S. is justified, such as in World War II. Sometimes it is not, such as in Vietnam and Haiti. In each case we come as liberators, and then stay, imposing our own ideals of civilization on the people we occupy.
The United States government views the man on the Arab street as the person sitting in darkness. He needs liberation, they say. He needs to learn the ways of the West, they say. What they do not say is, what are we supposed to do if he doesn’t go along with it? The answer is unpleasant. It is the inside of Twain’s pie of “civilization.”
It is the brutal, yet likely, result of our occupation of Iraq. In the Bush Administration’s mind’s eye Iraq will adopt a constitutionally democratic government, political violence will cease, and people will henceforth go about their daily lives in what might be labeled “East U.S.A.” If the Iraqi people don’t want to do this, however, we will run across Twain’s second America: the U.S. imposes its rule upon Iraq and doesn’t let go until it is no longer in its best interest to do so, i.e. a very long time.
The Administration might be excused for thinking it can manage since many nations grew into liberal democracies in the last few years. If they did, why can’t we force the Arabs to do the same? The problem is that Iraq and the Arab world posses little of the liberal dynamic that spurred new democratic governments in countries such as Poland and South Korea. True, in Jordan, Kuwait, and a small handful of other Arab countries there are hopeful signs of liberal values taking root. But in the main we are not looking at a land that merely needs its leaders deposed and Jimmy Carter to monitor free elections. We are looking at a region where our ways cannot be imposed without accompanying, and lasting, brute force and occupation.
The danger in Iraq is if the United States leaves another dictator might quickly emerge, rattle his sabers like Saddam, and push us to move right back in. To prevent this public relations catastrophe we will not leave Iraq. We will not leave alone whatever Iraqi government emerges. And while we are there Iraqis will see two Americas. We will introduce the Arab sitting in darkness to the pie of American civilization, both the good and the evil. It is my hope the good will somehow be the bigger portion. But in this matter I, like Twain, am not optimistic.

Political Musings

My latests from the Minnesota Daily. I pontificate over what make next year's primaries ones to remember. I know that just about the only posts I've had lately have been from my column, but hey, ever heard of finals?

t’s the beginning of the summer the year before a leap year, so what do my thoughts naturally turn toward? The 2004 presidential elections, of course.
Now, I know this sounds sick to most of you, and it also does to me, but I really can’t help it. I’ve tried to kick the habit, and nothing has worked, so it’s on to presidential musing that I go. But hey, stick with me, because I’ve come up with an interesting prediction.

The unusual mix of contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination makes for an exciting scenario. What’s unusual about them is that just about all of them are rather usual. None of them stands out from the rest as a favorite, not even two or three. At least four have very strong hopes of grabbing the nomination.

Next, more than ever before, the nation’s primaries are on an accelerated schedule. It used to be that the presidential primary season was a state-by-state affair with the majority of delegates not chosen until well into the process. This allowed enough time for candidates to either run out of money or churn out enough name recognition and press coverage that one by one all but the winner would fall by the wayside. In addition, California and other big states were put off until near the end of the spring primaries, keeping large numbers of delegates unavailable as funds dwindled.

Now, after the traditional start in Iowa and New Hampshire, most other states, including California, will be over in a month or two. This doesn’t allow much time for candidates to run out of money and give up. Instead we have, in effect, a national primary.

This was somewhat the case in 2000, but we didn’t have a proper test of the new system. That was because there were only two big-ticket contenders in either party. In each case, one had a serious disadvantage in money and couldn’t last through “Super Tuesday.”

This time things really might be different. None of the four Democrats I alluded to above have a distinct advantage. Those are John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. All except Gephardt are playing to the most moderate Democrats, all supported the war in Iraq (although a bit reluctantly, except for Lieberman) and all have none of the charm of past Democratic winners such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Also, each can claim a distinct slice of the old “Democratic Coalition.” Edwards is the only true Southerner, Gephardt is an old union hand, Kerry has strong support in the northeast (and somehow is often labeled the “frontrunner”) and Lieberman is Jewish (see New York and Florida) as well as being the only candidate who legitimately could be called a conservative Democrat.

And then there’s the rest of the pack, many of whom have a chance for hefty vote totals. Howard Dean was one of the only candidates courageous enough to oppose invading Iraq. This means many, many Democrats think very highly of him. Al Sharpton is not a “serious” candidate, but might grab a serious share of the black vote, as would former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun if she runs.

If all or most of these Democrats end up on the ballot in New Hampshire some strange stuff might happen that this country hasn’t seen since 1952. If three or more candidates still stand when the effective national primary is over, no one candidate may hold a majority of delegates. This means something very fun for cable news junkies: a broker convention.

National political conventions used to be the place where parties actually chose their presidential candidates, similar to the way parties often still choose statewide candidates in Minnesota. In the last 50 years the primary system has “democratized” the process, and year after year conventions have meant less and less.

If the primaries end with no clear holder of a majority of delegates the convention will resume center stage. The two or three candidates with the most delegates will try and court the also-rans so endorsements will follow and candidates will step down and pledge their support to someone else. However, this does not mean the delegates will necessarily follow their ex-candidate’s lead, and large numbers of undecided or shifting delegates might show up at the convention. Whatever comes out of that is anyone’s guess, but here’s one thing to chew on: The delegates don’t have to nominate someone who ran in the primaries. If they can’t agree on one of the candidates and another person steps forward, that person could be the nominee. And someone will have Hillary on speed dial.

It's ok to read the Constitution

I mean REALLY. Here's my lastest rant in the Minnesota Daily about the judicial appointments saga:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer has not read the U.S. Constitution. I know this because he has said that people are unfit to be federal judges if they seek to “curtail the powers of Congress.” May I refer the senator to the primary author of our Constitution, James Madison, who said the federal government’s powers are to be “few and defined”?
Schumer and his cohorts in the Senate are currently doing whatever they can to block President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations, including the unprecedented use of filibusters. They say some of Bush’s nominees, such as Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada and Texas Justice Priscilla Owen, are “out of the mainstream” of American values. These legal scholars are not fit for the bench because, say our noble senators, they might believe the outrageous notion that Congress does not have the power to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Schumer’s shameless statements ignore the words of Madison and the following 200-plus years of history. During many of those years the court overrode Congress’ will when Congress moved beyond its allotted powers.

Charles Schumer can’t understand this history. The fact that he can’t is frightening. It points toward a view of absolute majoritarianism: If the majority of legislators vote for a law, then that law is per se constitutional.

That is not what the Constitution says. As clear as day, the Constitution limits the power of Congress. In the opening to Article I it states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” This means, by implication, that Congress does not have the powers that are not granted — which tells us, without reading any further, that not all powers imaginable are granted to Congress. If we read on, Section 8 of Article I enumerates most of the “vested” powers. They are quite specific. It contains narrow allocations such as the power “to establish post offices” or “fix the standard of weights and measures.”

The language from Section 8 that lawmakers like Schumer seize upon is “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This seems to be the only sentence in the Constitution with which Schumer has familiarized himself. The phrase, set among other specific grants of authority, has been broadly read over the last 65 years to grant Congress plenary power over our lives. Activities that no speaker of the English language would classify as “commerce” or “among the several states,” such as the width of office hallways or the content of municipal drinking water, are now routinely regulated by Congress. The only limits on the federal government have become the liberties in the Bill of Rights. This turns the original understanding of the Constitution on its head. Instead of having no power except what is specifically granted to it, Congress has the power to regulate everything except what is specifically disallowed.

In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has begun to reverse this understanding ever so slightly. It has, either through striking down a law or through reading it in a limited light, stated that Congress does not have, for example, the power to criminalize the possession of guns near schools or to regulate non-interstate waters. This is hardly a revolutionary, dangerous or “out-of-the-mainstream” concept.

Yet, senators like Schumer think an opponent of unlimited congressional power is unfit for the federal bench. We are often told that the Democratic Party’s opposition to Bush’s judicial nominees relates to abortion rights. This is true to a point, but it contradicts Schumer’s own words. Statements made by his office demonstrate the Democrats are less worried about the legality of abortion and much more about threats to the plenary power of Congress.

It is not surprising that Schumer votes for laws that violate the Constitution. Congress has a penchant for doing so, and we shouldn’t be surprised he is no different than anyone else. What is surprising is that his party will not vote for — or even allow a vote on — nominees that actually read the text of the document authorizing Schumer’s day job.

If those who want unlimited Congressional power choose to believe the Commerce Clause gives them unlimited authority, so be it. But why is someone who believes Congress’ power is limited — something “mainstream” Americans would probably agree with — unfit for the judiciary? Who is the extremist here, the “ideological” nominees or the authoritarian senators who will not yield one inch of their kingly power?

Tony Who?

My latest musings on Tony Blair's future as set below, as they are today in the Minnesota Daily. My apologizes to those in Britain who know more than me.

Although the war is issue number one amongst our nation’s leaders, the controversy surrounding it has yet to disrupt the power structure of the major parties. George W. Bush administration officials are not likely to march out of a cabinet meeting in support of a cease-fire, and no major Democrats threatened to leave the party if it failed to support invading Iraq. In Great Britain, however, there’s a different story.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is among the most centrist members of his party. He has transformed the British Labor Party from a social democrat, if not socialist, “old left” party into a “third-way” technocratic party — a party that works in the name of the free market system, but seeks to regulate the market in the direction of social justice. This has created great strain in the Labor Party. Until now most in the party have by-and-large supported Blair because they remember how bad they did in the Margaret Thatcher era. Then party members would publicly shout “three cheers for Socialism!” at party conferences, only to be demolished in the general election.

Traditional Labor supporters have bit their tongues and followed Blair into two successive electoral landslides. Now, however, emboldened by that success, the rifts between Labor’s free marketers and the socialists might be about to break open. At issue, of course, is Blair’s support of Bush’s Iraq policy. The free market Laborites are by instinct inclined to support the United States and therefore are inclined to support Bush. This is the natural way for a pro-American European to act. The only problem is that most Labor members are not pro-American Europeans. Maybe they were pro-Clinton Europeans, but they do not hold a pro-American outlook.

Consequently, some of Blair’s cabinet ministers threatened that they would resign if Britain invaded Iraq without a U.N. Security Council authorization. When push came to shove a handful actually did. The House of Commons held a vote where Blair garnered a large majority of votes in favor of invading Iraq. However, more than a hundred members of his own party voted against him. Blair has survived his first test, but unless the war ends quite successfully (which, as we know, is doubtful), he might not survive for much longer.

It might be near the time for “Old Labor” supporters to play their hand. Blair is becoming much more like a moderate member of Britain’s Conservative Party than a mainstream Laborite. There are also the Liberal Democrats, the only major party who were against military intervention. The liberals currently hold more seats in parliament than they have at any time since the early years of the 20th century.

The rift in the Labor Party between the moderate (if not center-right) members, such as Blair, and the socialists, coupled with the pro-war Conservatives and the antiwar stance of a strong Liberal Democrat Party, make for a tinderbox in the British houses of parliament. If left-wing laborites turn against Blair, all manner of things might happen. On many economic policies Blair, and therefore the Labor Party, is to the right of the liberals. Most antiwar laborites are not happy about this. The war might be the last straw for many of them, and we might witness a perhaps temporary but nonetheless real exodus from Labor to the Liberal Democrats. This is less likely to occur if Labor’s left thinks it could oust Blair from power and “take back the party.”

However, Blair has many cronies in the upper echelons of the party. They got where they are through his political will and will follow him to the end. There is no chance of them jumping ship to the conservatives, as their party is in a continual state of upheaval that shows little sign of abating. Therefore, something has to give.

Throughout the Thatcher years, old school Labor socialists dreamed of the day when British voters would shake-off Maggie’s charm and embrace a renewed love for the welfare state. Those dreams might have mellowed a bit with the demise of communism and six years of power, but replace the name “Thatcher” with “Blair” and the dreams remain. Before Blair came to power in 1997, he told his rank-and-file they could not advocate what they want (a reversal of the Thatcher era) and get elected. Now that they have such a strong majority that advice is not as apropos. If Labor’s left does not act against Blair because of Iraq, it is hard to imagine when they would. Other “third-way” centrists stand in line behind Blair. It’s not like once he steps down a leftist will take his place.

So, political combat might be their only option. We might be about to witness another instance of the left eating the left. And isn’t it delicious.

What?!

Robert Novak is anti-American? "You're either with us or against us" really is a load of tripe.

Here They Come!

OK, my prediction for the Seattle Mariners this year (whose season begins in a mere week): 95-69. Not much of a change on last year, but remember the tough division they're in. Considering how they looked in last year's second-half, this would be a great improvement. I feel the pitching will be decent enough, and the addition of Randy Winn should help a good bit. If Edgar Martinez stays fit (and he's looking damn good so far this spring) and improves then things could get even better. This probably means they're in the playoffs, but beyond that three hateful words always keep me from further predictions: New York Yankees.

Back from the Show

My long long absence from posting can be attributed to my participation in the University of Minnesota's first annual law school musical. Many law schools put on such a production, and now my school has jumped on the bandwagon. Why does a LAW SCHOOL put on a musical, you might ask? I really have no idea, but it's so fun to lampoon the institution that everyone loves to hate that the invitation to participate is too delectable to miss. And, I've always wanted to play Puck, for some odd reason, and now I finally got my chance (well, in a sick, twisted, and bizarre way at least).

GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below is my column in today's Minnesota Daily concerning this year's conceal-carry debate in the Minnesota Legislature. Conceal-carry bills are in committee in the House and Senate. The only question is whether the DFL (for non-Minnesotans that's "Democratic-Farmer-Labor" party: Yes, "Democratic" isn't liberal enough here) majority in the Senate will put up a fight. There is sizable majority in favor of conceal-carry in the Senate, but I suspect the leadership has a trick or two up its sleave.

Here's my column:

Some of the most important facts in life are counterintuitive. Just because something doesn’t “make sense” on first glance doesn’t mean it’s crazy. Often after meditating on a counterintuitive proposition, we realize it’s actually true.
An example is the fact that banks pay you interest. Remember when you were a kid and you found out that in exchange for taking care of your money the bank was going to pay you? How does that make sense? They’re doing you a favor, and yet they reward you. Another example is the misery of 1920s Prohibition. Instead of making the ills associated with alcohol go away, Prohibition created more problems, not fewer.

Similarly, another counterintuitive proposition is that if people own more guns there will be less crime. “More guns?” the likes of Sarah Brady will scream. “If guns are used to kill people, how can more of them lead to fewer people being killed? You’re crazy!” This statement reflects a person’s first-glance reaction, and too often the same person never looks further and reflects on the truth underlying the claim.

Yes, guns are used to kill people. Know what else guns are used for? No, not just hunting. Guns are used to defend people. A very small percentage of the population actively seeks to murder fellow humans. The rest of us wish to defend ourselves from those who seek to kill, rob or maim us. A way of doing this is owning and carrying a firearm. If we view carrying a gun not as heightening the ability to kill, but as strengthening our ability to defend ourselves, the counter intuition of “more guns, less crime” suddenly becomes a presumption.

Of course, this presumption is refutable. The best argument against allowing people to own and carry guns is that they will accidentally use them to kill people. If a prospective murderer enters your home, shooting him in self-defense doesn’t sound that bad. But what if your neighbor mistakenly walks into your home instead of her own in the middle of the night? Shooting her would be a tragic accident made possible through gun possession.

We cannot easily arrive at an answer to the “more guns, less crime” dilemma. It is an empirical question with numbers on two different sides — the number of crimes (especially murders) thwarted by gun ownership on one side and the number of accidental mutilations and killings on the other. (I leave out gun crimes committed by criminals, as they will probably occur anyway, although that is a legitimate empirical question.) It might be that allowing people to carry guns in public cuts down on crime because criminals are afraid potential victims will be armed. On the other hand, it might be that when people own and carry more guns, accidental shootings rise so dramatically that they outweigh the gains stemming from lower crime rates.

By approaching the gun issue through recognizing legitimate costs and benefits, we can leave out some of the fire-breathing zealotry employed by both sides of the debate. Anti-gun activists can’t just defer to the fact that guns are designed to kill people, and Second Amendment enthusiasts can’t just defend unrestricted gun ownership by stating “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Instead, we can employ actual facts.

Of course, there are all kinds of facts to draw from and volumes of numbers that sometimes contradict each other. What tends to get lost, however, is the balancing ledger I outline above. Numbers that pertain to the costs and benefits in accidental shootings and lower crime rates are central to the issue.

This spring the Minnesota Legislature is considering greatly expanding our ability to carry handguns. Minnesota is one of only 17 states that

do not automatically allow non-felons, after meeting certain nominal requirements, to carry handguns. In the coming debates I hope we utilize information on the actual impact of gun possession and refrain from resorting to hyperbole. Stop and challenge your intuitions. Check data on both sides of the debate. You might discover that an armed society is a safer society. You might realize that not everyone who wants to carry a weapon wishes to use it. Or, you might find that granting more handgun permits creates more death than it prevents.

Either way you end up, you can then call your legislator knowing you have thought about guns as real things that people use, not as personifications of evil. I urge everyone to think hard, as the issue is about to hit us right between the eyes, and no amount of untamed rhetoric is going to stop it.