Why Vote for the US President?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why should you vote for the American president? Or, if you think that you shouldn't vote for the US President, why shouldn't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members?

Individual freedom

On the blog this week we continue to talk about the libertarian political position. As we've come to see, libertarians basically espouse the view that individuals should have the maximum amount of freedom with the minimum amount of government intervention in their lives. People should be able to freely act however they choose as long as they are not harming someone else.

There are a number of politicians in Congress who identify with the libertarian view -- Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim Demint, and Bob Barr are four examples.

In general, libertarians argue that Americans are too dependent on the government for help and therefore not as free as they presume. Dependency is not freedom. And Americans are really dependent on the government and, worse, basically delusional about that dependence. That delusion is seen no clearer than in this survey.

A sample of Americans who were already dependent on government assistance were asked: "Have you ever used a government social program?" The table below shows two things: 1. the percentage of people who were unaware that they were dependent on government assistance 2. and the government assistance program on which they were in fact dependent.

Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who Report They “Have Not Used a Government Social Program”
Program	“No, Have Not Used a Government Social Program”
529 or Coverdell	64.3
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction	60.0
Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit	59.6
Student Loans	53.3
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit	51.7
Earned Income Tax Credit	47.1
Social Security—Retirement & Survivors	44.1
Pell Grants	43.1
Unemployment Insurance	43.0
Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill)	41.7
G.I. Bill	40.3
Medicare	39.8
Head Start	37.2
Social Security Disability	28.7
Supplemental Security Income	28.2
Medicaid	27.8
Welfare/Public Assistance	27.4
Government Subsidized Housing	27.4
Food Stamps	25.4

So, libertarians advocate less dependence on government. 

This means in house sex work should be made legal because criminalization is ineffective and consenting adults should be able to have sex with whom ever they choose without government involvement. 

According to Ron Paul, this means that the Transportation Security Administration (the people who search you at the airport before you board the airplane) should be closed because they are an "out of control organization" that "gropes and grabs" Americans and invades our individual privacy. Airline riders are dependent on the government for providing their security before they board an airplane and this infringes on their freedom.  

This means that when massive economic downturns occur such as the Great Depression, the government should not intervene to help the unemployed or develop national infrastructure because this leads to more national debt, higher taxes, capped prices on some consumer goods, and so on. Libertarians argue that it is a mistake to believe that government programs are solutions to economic problems.   

This also means for instance that during natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on, the government should not provide aid. Ron Paul, for instance, recently said that areas struck by tornadoes and hurricanes should not receive government assistance to carry out rescue operations, rebuild, or to prepare for future weather disasters.

What do you think?

Do you think that Americans are too dependent on the government? If you we are too dependent, are there ever times when it is ok for the government to intervene -- like during disasters or attack by foreign country? If you believe we are not too dependent, does our dependence on the government limit our freedom? When is there too much government assistance and individual freedom is being limited?  

Libertarian Politics in America

This week we make a radical shift away from totalitarian governments to libertarian governments. These two ways of governing populations sit at opposite ends of the spectrum: 1) totalitarian systems work to dissolve individuals into the larger collective of the state and 2) libertarian systems celebrate individuals and their inherent rights -- these civil rights limit the state's ability to interfere in the lives of the individuals it governs.

Here are some of the Libertarian Party's positions on various social and political issues of our time. Read through them and respond to the questions I've asked at the end of the blog post.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Take a moment, reflect on, and respond to the questions below:

Which one (or more than one) of these Libertarian positions do you find unacceptable? Why do you find it unacceptable? Or, do you agree with all of them? What about these Libertarian positions do you find agreeable? Why do you like them?

How would a libertarian respond to the assassination of an American citizen by the US President?

Is Totalitarianism Possible in America?

Over the next couple of weeks we are going to talk about totalitarianism. We'll talk about the origins of the word, the conditions out of which totalitarians forms of government emerge, its goals and features, the relationship between the government and the citizen, and a number of other interesting topics related to this type of political arrangement.

In a totalitarians system, like in North Korea or what is emerging in Iran, the state and its charismatic leadership become omnipresent features of peoples' everyday lives. Indeed, in the most extreme cases, the aspects of your life that you usually call "private" (e.g. life in the house, emotional and intimate relationships, business transactions, etc.) practically disappear. The state government becomes a feature of most every aspect of one's life. For instance, in Iran, there is a moral police who enforce a public dress and appearance code. It is illegal for men to wear necklaces and certain kinds of hair cuts are outlawed. Also, at Iranian universities, men and women may be separated.

During the 1930s and 1940s, many Americans started asking publicly: Can America become a totalitarian state? With the rise of Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain under totalitarian governments, some Americans were concerned that in the case of a nuclear threat from a foreign enemy the US Constitution would be streamlined -- civil liberties would be curtailed and Americans' lives would be totally mobilized against the foreign threat.

Since 9/11, some people are asking once again: Can the US become a totalitarian state where American's civil liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom to bare arms, right to a trial by jury, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and protest, etc.) mean very little?

Naomi Wolf argued, for instance, that the Bush administration has started America down the path to a totalitarian system. She notes 10 steps the Bush administration has already taken, such as 1. invoking a terrifying domestic and foreign enemy, 2. creating a secret prison system (Gulag), 3. developing a thuggish groups of citizens, 4. setting up an intensive domestic surveillance system, 5. harassing citizens groups, 6. engaging in arbitrary detainment of citizens, 7. targeting citizens for assassination, 8. controlling the press, 9. equating dissenting voices with treason, 10. suspending the rule of law.

Similarly, Glen Grenwald has argued that the Obama administration has continued down this path. Particularly, the Obama administration has stripped certain US citizens of their civil liberties and assassinated them without their Constitutional rights to due process or freedom of speech.

The fear is that both Democrats and Republicans are ushering America toward an totalitarian state.

What do you think?

Do you think it would be possible for totalitarian politics to emerge in the US? Why or why not? Is it necessary in the fight against terrorism to limit Americans' civil liberties? Or, are civil liberties too important to give up in the fight against terrorism?

Class in America

This week and next week we are reading The Iron Heel, which talks a lot about economic classes and class antogonism.

What are classes? Basically, economic classes break down like this:

Workers own little to nothing but their ability to do manual labor, which they sale for a wage--hence, workers are sometimes called "wage slaves." Workers then take that wage and spend it on consumer goods that they just made at the factory.

The capitalist class do not labor for a living -- they do not sale their labor for a wage. Rather, they may be working wealthy -- maybe they own the machines and factories ("the means of production") in which workers labor each day for a modest wage and they own the stores in which laborers purchase their goods. Or capitalists could be part of the idle rich -- meaning they don't work for their money. Usually, their money is held in the form of investments and they make income from the dividends paid to them by the various companies.

Middle class folks sit somewhere in between the workers and the capitalists. They probably own a nice home and they may own a small business, but they probably work there each day alongside their employees, or they may be middle managers who earn a good salary but are not wealthy.

In America, the number of poor people is increasing. The middle class is getting smaller as more people fall from middle to working class. 

Workers and the shrinking middle class in America work more with fewer days of leave, less maternity leave, and fewer days of paid vacation compared to others around the world. Click on these images for a better picture of the emerging situation in the US:

At the same time, the wealthy are fewer and getting richer. CEO pay keeps going up while worker pay stays about the same. 

The gap between the wealthy and the working class is getting bigger -- while many citizens keep imagining that it is not, as this video shows:

Some people, however, see an increasing conflict between the classes -- as these graphs from Pew Research show.

What do you think? Are there classes in America? Is the gap between the classes too large -- is there too much inequality? If you think that gap is too large, what should be done to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? Or, is the gap between the wealthy and the poor just about right? Should our policies aim to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor? Are there any potential political problems of high levels of inequality?

Surveillance and You

Surveillance, which means to be watched or observed, is an important way that one person or group can exercise some amount of control over other individuals or groups.

Recall the father's actions in The Road. He regularly used binoculars to scan the landscape and to look for any signs of people or movement. If he saw people at a distance, then the father avoided contact.

Government agencies also use surveillance to exercise control over the population -- this includes domestic populations and international populations. People are closely observed as they pass through security at the airport or when they go through a sobriety road check or when the National Security Agency uses illegal wiretapping to watch people inside the US.

Here are some of the ways that the government uses different kinds of surveillance to exercise control over different populations:

1. The US government and other governments around the world request that Google provide user data. Here is a nice graphic that illustrates the frequency of requests.

2. The US federal government has recently empowered the FBI with greater surveillance powers over the domestic population:

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

3. Some members of Congress (not all members of Congress) are working to pass laws that would empower certain domestic police agencies to gather "geolocation data" -- that is, the information stored on a person's GPS and cell phone that tracks their movement. This would enable the FBI to gather that information.

4. The FBI uses GPS devices to track peoples' movement. Without a warrant, FBI agents secretely attach a GPS tracking device to a person's bumper and monitor their movement.

5. City governments also conduct surveillance. Major metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago have extensive surveillance systems that enable police agents to monitor peoples' activity. Chicago has 10,000 cameras placed around the city, for instance.

Here are my questions for you to consider and thoughtfully comment on:

What do you think?

Surveillance is an important aspect of modern government. Does that mean all government surveillance is justified? For reasons of security, should the government be able to conduct as much surveillance as deemed necessary? Or, can there be too much governmental surveillance? If there can be too much governmental surveillance, where is the limit? Who should be responsible for drawing that limit -- and saying this is the proper amount of surveillance and we will accept no more? And, what are the potential risks to the population if the government collects information on all aspects of peoples' lives? What is the value of having a part of our lives that are outside of governmental surveillance?

Anarchy in Somalia

What if there was no government? What is the absence of government called?

Let's talk about anarchy in this post.

Anarchy, which as we mentioned in class is the absence of hierarchy, is an ideal concept. We can never find pure anarchy in observable life.



Conditions in contemporary Somalia, however, offer an approximation to anarchy. Government in any formal sense has little practical hold on life there.

Somalia has not been under the control of a single national government since 26 January 1991, when military strongman Siad Barre was toppled.... During the 1990s, the conflict in Somalia was between rival warlords and clan-based militia. This led to widespread hunger and the UN and US intervened before a humiliating pull-out.

Fighting continued but with less intensity until in 2006, the Union of Islamic Courts became the first group to exert control over the whole of the capital, Mogadishu, for 15 years.

Ethiopia then invaded to oust the Islamists, with US support. But the Ethiopians were unable to exert control and now the capital is the scene of regular battles between the UN-backed government and the al-Qaeda linked militants, al-Shabab.

What is life like in Somalia?

Somalia has been consistently ranked as the worst failed state on the Failed States Index published annually by Foreign Policy magazine.

Approximately 20% of the population, or about 2 million people have become political refugees.

Piracy has become a source of employment for a sizable portion of the male population.

Businessmen opened their own hospitals, schools, telephone companies and even privatized mail services. Men who were able to muster private armies, often former military officers, seized the biggest prizes: abandoned government property, like ports and airfields, which could generate as much as $40,000 a day. They became the warlords. Many trafficked in guns and drugs and taxed their fellow Somalis.

Beneath the warlords were clan-based networks of thousands of people — adolescent enforcers, stevedores, clerks, truck drivers and their families — all tied into the chaos economy. Ditto for the freelance landlords and duty-free importers.

Yet, Benjamin Powell says:

It is hard to call any country mired in poverty an economic success. Yet by most measures Somalia’s poverty is diminishing and Somalia has improved living standards faster than the average sub-Saharan African country since the early 1990s. In that sense Somalia is at least a relative success story. The most interesting part of Somalia’s success is that it has all been achieved while the country has lacked any effective central government.

Plus, since anarchy took hold of life in Somalia, the life expectancy rate has increased (people are living longer), the GDP per capita has increased (people are wealthier), the infant mortality rate has declined (infants are more likely to survive), adult literacy has improved (more adults can read), and telecommunications have spread (cell phones are widespread).



What do you think? Does a place like the anarchical Somalia have something to offer that a governed society lacks? Does less government and less publicly provided security mean more freedom? Would you rather be secured by police officers that sometimes take liberties with their jobs, or would you rather be secured by Somalian technicals like those shown in the pictures above?

Visions of Anarchy

In class, we talked about four visions of anarchy, life without government, and the origins of government -- this included Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Kropotkin.

Kropotkin offered one vision of anarchy. For him, life without government would be far less coercive and far more cooperative. For example, we can see examples of this kind of anarchy in the case of Belgium, which has been without a government for around 500 days [read about it here, here, and here]. Also, the wild west during the American frontier days was anarchical and apparently less violent than some American cities today. There are also a number of anarchist communities that have existed. Radical Christians, for instance, peacefully and voluntarily live in anarchical communties today.

Hobbes offered another vision of anarchy. For him, life without government was nasty brutish, and short. It was men against men in an all out struggle to survive -- and because of this constant struggle, there would be little wealth, little learning, few grand structures, little clothing, and no commerce. For example, we can see this vision of anarchy played out in places like Karachi, Pakistan. Somalia is another example. It has been without a centralized government since 1991 and is consistently ranked as the worst failed state in the world with 20% of its population living as political refugees. Like slum lords building houses in Karachi or the businessmen opening hospitals in Somalia, some people are making money and benefiting from the lack of government, but life is pretty hard for a large number of people.

What do you think?

Which vision of anarchy do you think is most likely to occur? Are people likely to voluntarily cooperate, as in Belgium? Or, do you think that people are more likely to engage in an all out struggle, as in Somalia? Or do you think something else? Tell me: What do you think life without government would be like? Does life without government have something to offer that a governed life does not?

Politics and Government Fall 2012

Hello Classes

This semester this blog is a way to get you participating and thinking about politics and government. Three Politics and Government classes (100.02, 100.03) will all be using this blog and commenting on posts. With nearly 60 students participating, there should be ample opportunity for everyone to have something worthwhile to say in response to my original post or another students' post.

Please be THOUGHTFUL and RESPECTFUL with those posts that you disagree with. There should be no personal attacks or name calling. This is the space to make reasoned arguments about political struggle and governmental order.

Enjoy the semester!

Is the US an Imperial Power? Is that Good or Bad or Something Else?

At the height of its empire, the British had around 30 navel bases located around the world. Below is a map of the British Empire, which is marked in red:

Many people have argued that the US is at the height of its power. The US also has a large number of military bases around the world. Here is a map of US bases located around the world. US bases outside the US are marked in red.


Compared to any other country currently and compared to the British Empire at its height, the US maintains a lot of military bases around the world.

According to the Pentagon's own list [PDF], the US maintains around 865 bases. If you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand total bases. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory.

Many people, especially many Americans, see these bases as playing an important part in maintaining US national security.

Not everyone in the world agrees. Some see the US bases in negative terms.  For instance, many of the people living in Vieques, Puerto Rico were unhappy with the use of their island as a bombing range by the US Navy. There have been protests in Seoul, South Korea outside US military installations against US involvement in North-South Korean relations. Japanese citizens living in Okinawa have reservations about US Navel and Marine bases.

In Ghana, Kwame Nikrumah, an important African politician and anticolonial intellectual, argued that:

Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world

.

What do you think?

Do you think that it is legitimate to call the US a neocolonial, imperial power? Why or why not? Can you see how foreigners may dislike US military installations in their country? Or, can you not really see it? Do you think that arguments like this are bogus? Is it more the case that US military bases are more a benefit to the locals and their national security? Should the US be concerned with what locals think about its military installations? Are US national security interests too important to consider local peoples' concerns about the military bases?

American exceptionalism: What do you think?

This week we are still talking about US foreign policy.

It has been commonplace for American policymakers and citizens to claim that the US is exceptional. American exceptionalism is basically the belief that America is a unique nation and the "leader of the free world." Therefore, the US should be able to intervene in world affairs regardless of international law -- the idea is that the US intervenes for the greater good to ensure global free trade, democracy, and peace.

Not everybody in the world agrees with the claim that America is exceptional. Some critics argue that American exceptionalism is a myth. Others argue that American exceptionalism is leading to the decline of the United States in world power and prestige -- America is falling apart domestically and continuing to spend large amounts of money to wage war, and war makes many foreigners view American in negative terms.

What do you think?

Do you believe that there is something exceptional about the US? Should the US be able to carry out foreign policies that are against international law? Or should the US be restrained by international law like other states? If you believe that the US is exceptional, is it totally beneficial? Or, do you think that American exceptionalism comes with some negatives -- such as foreigners and other countries seeing the US in negative terms?  

US Foreign Policy, the President, and Terrorism

Continuing our discussion of foreign policy, this week will talk about the US President and his ability to make foreign policy -- especially, his capacity to make war.

Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon:

Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.

To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make.

Similarly, following policies originally laid out by the Bush administration, President Obama has killed American citizens without allowing individuals the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.




What do you think?

Has the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy, especially in terms of war?

Should the US President (the Executive branch of the government) be the primary maker of foreign policy? Or, should the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the policies of the US President?

Should the President be able to kill American citizens and take away their Constitutional rights?

Should citizens be more involved in US foreign policy making -- that is, should US foreign policy be more democratic? Or, should citizens be kept out of foreign policy decision making and trust their political leaders -- that is, should US foreign policy be more elitist?

Citizenship in America

Citizenship in America is acquired in one of these ways: 1) born in America, 2) born outside America but taken appropriate tests to become a naturalized citizen, 3) or born outside America but then married an American citizen. In this blog post, I want to focus on number 1, which is called birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship has not always been the law of the land. It was established by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was ratified by Congress in 1868. The first section of the 14th Amendment reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Recently, birthright citizenship has been questioned. For instance, Congressional Republican Steve King has called for an end to birthright citizenship because of illegal immigration. King is concerned about illegal immigration. In particular, King is concerned about illegal immigrants secretly coming across the US-Mexico border and having a child -- the child, because they were born in America, are now American citizens. King wants to do away with birthright citizenship because the children born in America make it easier for the parents who are illegal aliens to stay in the US. 


What do you think?


Should citizenship be determined by birth? Or should being born in America count for nothing? Should we determine citizenship by another standard? -- for example, citizenship could be purchased, or citizenship could be acquired by serving in the military, citizenship could be acquired by passing a test, citizenship could be acquired by doing public service, or citizenship could be acquired by measuring your net contribution to the society. These are just a few examples of the different ways that citizenship can be gained. 

Why vote for US President?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why should you vote for the American president? Or, if you think that you shouldn't vote for the US President, why shouldn't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members?

What is the right amount of individual freedom and government intervention?

On the blog this week we continue to talk about the libertarian political position. As we've come to see, libertarians basically espouse the view that individuals should have the maximum amount of freedom with the minimum amount of government intervention in their lives. People should be able to freely act however they choose as long as they are not harming someone else.

There are a number of politicians in Congress who identify with the libertarian view -- Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim Demint, and Bob Barr are four examples.

In general, libertarians argue that Americans are too dependent on the government for help and therefore not as free as they presume. Dependency is not freedom. And Americans are really dependent on the government and, worse, basically delusional about that dependence. That delusion is seen no clearer than in this survey.

A sample of Americans who were already dependent on government assistance were asked: "Have you ever used a government social program?" The table below shows two things: 1. the percentage of people who were unaware that they were dependent on government assistance 2. and the government assistance program on which they were in fact dependent.

Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who Report They “Have Not Used a Government Social Program”
Program	“No, Have Not Used a Government Social Program”
529 or Coverdell	64.3
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction	60.0
Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit	59.6
Student Loans	53.3
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit	51.7
Earned Income Tax Credit	47.1
Social Security—Retirement & Survivors	44.1
Pell Grants	43.1
Unemployment Insurance	43.0
Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill)	41.7
G.I. Bill	40.3
Medicare	39.8
Head Start	37.2
Social Security Disability	28.7
Supplemental Security Income	28.2
Medicaid	27.8
Welfare/Public Assistance	27.4
Government Subsidized Housing	27.4
Food Stamps	25.4

So, libertarians advocate less dependence on government. 

This means in house sex work should be made legal because criminalization is ineffective and consenting adults should be able to have sex with whom ever they choose without government involvement. 

According to Ron Paul, this means that the Transportation Security Administration (the people who search you at the airport before you board the airplane) should be closed because they are an "out of control organization" that "gropes and grabs" Americans and invades our individual privacy. Airline riders are dependent on the government for providing their security before they board an airplane and this infringes on their freedom.  

This means that when massive economic downturns occur such as the Great Depression, the government should not intervene to help the unemployed or develop national infrastructure because this leads to more national debt, higher taxes, capped prices on some consumer goods, and so on. Libertarians argue that it is a mistake to believe that government programs are solutions to economic problems.   

This also means for instance that during natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on, the government should not provide aid. Ron Paul, for instance, recently said that areas struck by tornadoes and hurricanes should not receive government assistance to carry out rescue operations, rebuild, or to prepare for future weather disasters.

What do you think?

Do you think that Americans are too dependent on the government? If you we are too dependent, are there ever times when it is ok for the government to intervene -- like during disasters or attack by foreign country? If you believe we are not too dependent, does our dependence on the government limit our freedom? When is there too much government assistance and individual freedom is being limited?