Redstate

Well that's pretty fantastic.  Fantastic that Santorum said it, fantastic that Rove listened and acted.  The lack of conservative speakers has been a great concern among a lot of us.

Now there is still that matter of the immigration plank of the republican platform, which remains extremely controversial among conservatives.  it will be interesting to see if there is some backtracking on that as well.

Here is a question for you. Why do parties exist? Are they there to create a power structure for a small group to psss laws that lack enough support otherwise?

If a piece of legislation is disliked by the public, should a politician still pass it anyways because he thinks it is a good policy (basically, that poeple are too dumb to understand their own best interests)?

Basically, how much do you believe in democracy or are you just a right-leaning  authoritarian that thinks that elections are merely formalities to achieve a four year dictatorship?

People don't want what is in most of the GOP platform (at least not to the degree being pushed). It should be dumped because of it.

hi jayson, I'm also an Orthodox Christian, 5 years.

(saw your link)

I think the answer to your question is that our country is a Republic, and researching what a republic is would go at least part way to answering your questions.  Representative democracy, takes the edge off the worst of populism, while still holding officials accountable periodically to elections.  Facilitates negotation and compromise, at least enough to get things done.  In theory you end up with some seasoned elders who occasionally might have the courage to occasionally go against what a majority in their district wants, for what they see is the greater long term good.  Then their district can dump them at the next election if they disagree strongly enough.  Anyway talking about dictatorship is strange in light of the balance of powers.  Republicans have difficulty getting much done even though they control both houses of congress and the presidency.  There might be a power base strong enough to get a minority platform enacted, but if the populace feels strongly enough they can reverse it in short order.

hi jayson, I'm also an Orthodox Christian, 5 years.

Well, I've written about this in a couple other places, but I'm "coming" home, but not quite there yet. I'm not quite Orthodox, but over the last year and change, I've been attending liturgy ocasssionally and slowly tip-toeing around it. (The progress that has been there is mostly from my girlfriend's prodding who grew up in a Middle Eastern Orthodox church before moving to America.)

I think the answer to your question is that our country is a Republic, and researching what a republic is would go at least part way to answering your questions.  Representative democracy, takes the edge off the worst of populism, while still holding officials accountable periodically to elections.  Facilitates negotation and compromise, at least enough to get things done.

While some of the founding fathers clearly didn't trust the people, they were wrong. The will of the electorate as a singular entity will make decisions better than any small group of experts. This is proven time and time against. Populisms drawback that many talk about is that is removes power from those who would abuse it. Of course, those with minority viewpoints are the only ones that see this as a good thing.

Elections are like a political market. When people argue that the electorate is wrong and should be overruled, they are effectively trying to claim that the market has failed and that they are smarter than the collective will of the people. The correct answer is instead that the electorate is definitely smarter than you, its just that you are too dumb (not you personally) to understand how.

This has to be the case, or markets and democracy would have imploded long ago. And if it isn't the case, we might as well just turn into a technocracy and start licensing people to vote only if they have an advanced college degress.

Places like California and Switzerland have referrendum processes for a reason, to assertain the will of the people because it is so important. Only the electorate can tell what is best for the people. And when the people reject something, it can mean many things, but it is always going to be making a better decision. Think of the electorate as a giant brain with each individual being a neuron. Each neuron may be really dumb, but together they are very powerful, and the American electorate is the most powerful policy computer ever formed. Being Orthodox you should understand how this works in church dogma too. Orthodoxy cherishes the will of the people so much so that it is democracy though time and not just in the present.

In theory you end up with some seasoned elders who occasionally might have the courage to occasionally go against what a majority in their district wants, for what they see is the greater long term good.

Here is a problem in districting. Democracy and the will of the people can only work as well as the mechanisms of government allow that will to be assertained. Districtions (especially with the jerrymandered lines) often form a barrier. Take the electorate college now. Because of it, Bush was out there showing off his protectionist credentialis in Ohio on Sunday, literally bragging about steel tarrifs he enacted. Of course those tarrifs hurt many car manufacturing plants in the South, but they are mostly going to vote for Bush anyways. Candidates pander to a few states, effectively turning democracy into a farce that means give everybody what they want instead of do what people agree on.

Many elected officials seem to think that democracy means everybody getting in on the gravy train. If a rep from CA wants money for her pet project that nobody else wants, she bribes the rep from TN with money for his project. Instead of making decisions by majority, each minority gets what they want.

I think that too many pols now view elections as ugly necessities. They think that as long as they get elected, they are given a green light to do whatever they want for the length of their term. If the public doesn't like a policy, do it anways, and try to find something else they like enough to get reelected next time. It is no longer the will of the people, but the will of the pol.

Republicans have difficulty getting much done even though they control both houses of congress and the presidency.

What a waste this Bush presidency has been. We control the House, Senate, and presidency and yet we get a terrible tax bill that not too many Reaganesque supply-siders are happy with, no social security changes and no serious discussion about it, no good medicare/caid changes instead a massive expansion, no good change in monetary policy, and the list can go on all night.

Right now one of my favoriate politicans in Harold Ford, the Dem TN rep. It isn't because of what he thinks, but because I know he can be brought around to thinking right. He puts things in the proper context, what do the American people want not what will help his party. Good policy is good politics, always, and he understands this.

I'm a fence sitter this election. I could go Kerry, Bush, that Libertarian guy, or just stay home (and I live in NM right now too). But all this talk of the Republican party not being further right really bothers me because I see it as a disaster since in many ways the people don't want to move as far to the right as I want want to go or others here.

Spector is no prize... but a Santorum Party cannot have power in America, and never will.  The illusion of being a sizeable chunk of half of the half of the country that vote is that one thinks you should get more, but really, the last think Santorum needs is more time in front of the people to make his case for Republicans.  Santorum already has a lot of influence, the convention stage is not here to show Santorum appreciation.  Why does Santorum want on the stage?  Would it be personal validation?  Because it's a matter of "how many votes can you get me Sen. Santorum?"

Politics often makes strange bedfellows, and none stranger than Santorum/Specter/Bush.

With that said, if we look at the Republican party as displayed in the convention, we can hardly argue that it is anything other than a big tent.  We don't hide our pro-abortion people even if thier position is an embarassment to us.  We let people who disagree with us on every single issue save one get up on the podium and speak [Ron Silver].  When was the last time we saw this at a Donkey convo?

Anyway, let's remember how the abortion thing works - what most pro-life conservatives are for (at least vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade) is returning the issue to the states.  Arguably, were that to happen, Pennsylvania would be a pro-choice state.  My point here is that Pennsylvania is proabably too liberal to elect two pro-life senators.  As good a guy as Toomey is, I think political reality  and his state's voter composition would have made his election very difficult had he won the primary.

Although I voted for Toomey in the primary, I wasn't surprised to see Santorum back Specter.

I don't know of any recent case where a senator of the same party did not endorse his same-state colleague.  In fact, even when they are from opposing parties, they tend to stay out of campaigning for the challenger.  These guys do have to work together, after all.

More importantly, Santorum needs the support of liberal Republicans for his elections.  

BTW, Santorum's endorsement was rather underwhelming.  In one campaign ad, he said that Arlen was there "for the votes that count".  This was a rather left-handed compliment for those reading between the lines.

 

For what its worth, there are many Republicans who believe more immigration should be legal for myriad reasons.  Here is a previous discussion we had on redstate.

Sen. Santorum does not have coat-tails among the persuadables, undecideds, and moderates.  Indeed, the point of this convention is to convince folks like me that, if I vote for Bush, it won't be a de facto vote for Santorum as well.    

to the party platform is somewhat abstract, as you have not provided any examples of planks which you believe ought to be discarded, on grounds that they have been repudiated by majorities of the Amercian people.  That said, I do not believe that an analogy between the market and the political sphere is illuminating.  In the first place, the market, considered purely as an economic mechanism for the allocation of resources on the basis of the (literally) billions of individual decisions of preference of individuals, is just that, an abstraction.  It considers people purely as economic actors, as divorced from consideration of their other interests, which may and do conflict with decisions that might be arrived at on purely economic terms.  The "market" may allocate resources to McDonalds, but it does not follow from this that eating at McDonalds on a regular basis is wise, conducive to continued health.  The "market" may allocate resources to Hollywood, but it does not follow that the standard fare of Hollywood is artistically meritorious and morally edifying.

  Second, the same considerations apply in the political sphere.  The political marketplace may reject, say, the party position on marriage, but it does not follow that it would be wise and moral to allow continued judicial usurpation and the legitimation of modes of "familial organization" which do not conduce to the highest welfare of children and would further erode the institution of marriage.  The people, the marketplace, may err from the persepctive of wisdom.

  If a political party does not seek to exercise a persuasive function, one which seeks to educate the public regarding the consequences and wisdom of particular, and competing, courses of action, but instead serves as a cipher for majority whims, then it really is nothing more than an institution seeking a mandate for 4 years of rule.  Sometimes, the market fails.  Athansius contra mundum.  Though it seemed the whole world opposed the truth in his day, he held fast to the true faith, and eventually was vindicated.

The reason I vote Republican is because I care more about my paycheck than whether or not two guys can have sex with one another.  I'm socially moderate and fiscally conservative.

I have no problems with gay marriage, though I won't push for it.

I'm pro-choice.

I'm anti-CFR.

I'm against most gov't redistribution of wealth but, if it does, then faith-based organizations, as recipients, are okay by me.

I was for the war in Iraq.

Not sure on the education thing.

David Brooks's latest was aweome.

Rudy/McCain in '08.  I hoping that their icon status will compensate for their drop-off in religious right support.

I want my decifit hawks back!

I want my government to leave me the hell alone!

Sorry for my rant, but I want this to be my party too!

...and not a big fan of Specter if only for his obstructionism.

I do not believe that an analogy between the market and the political sphere is illuminating.  In the first place, the market, considered purely as an economic mechanism for the allocation of resources on the basis of the (literally) billions of individual decisions of preference of individuals, is just that, an abstraction.  It considers people purely as economic actors, as divorced from consideration of their other interests, which may and do conflict with decisions that might be arrived at on purely economic terms.  The "market" may allocate resources to McDonalds, but it does not follow from this that eating at McDonalds on a regular basis is wise, conducive to continued health.  The "market" may allocate resources to Hollywood, but it does not follow that the standard fare of Hollywood is artistically meritorious and morally edifying.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all to me. I can't make heads or tails out of these seemingly meaningless distinctions that you are trying to draw.

Take the stock market as a concrete example. When somebody buys an issue of stock, they are weighing two worlds, the one where they own the stock at the current price and the one where they do not. They think that the world owning the stock is preferencial. They come to this conclusion usually by discounting the future of the company into the present and thinking that the stock is undervalued. In an election, when somebody goes into the booth to vote for a candidate, they are also weighing two worlds, the world of the each candidate, and making a choice as to what world looks best. They make this decision in a similar way, by weighing the policy and leadership backet of each candidate. They are both economic decisions, and in the loose sense of the word when you include vague good and bad feelings, almost all decisions are based on economic valuation.

Elections are not random, but based on future expectations of each candidate. The Big Dog himself understood this very well in his 1996 debate against Dole. Elections are about looking to the future and the only way the past is relevant is in what it can tell you about future tendencies. This is exactly analogous to the stock market. Markets are forwards looking and the only use that last year's earnings are is what they can tell you about the future.

After rereading what you wrote a number of times, I think I understand what you are trying to say. And I think that you don't understand the relationship. When the market allocates resources to McD's it is saying that people will get enjoyment out of eating there. That is, more resources need to get to McD's because there is distribution that isn't optimizing our resources now. Just like a candidate. The vote is to give him more resources because he would use them better than the other candidates. Just like two stocks, you pick the one that will perform the best.

Second, the same considerations apply in the political sphere.  The political marketplace may reject, say, the party position on marriage, but it does not follow that it would be wise and moral to allow continued judicial usurpation and the legitimation of modes of "familial organization" which do not conduce to the highest welfare of children and would further erode the institution of marriage.  The people, the marketplace, may err from the persepctive of wisdom.

Now you are showing your authoritarian colors, trying to ascribe morality to the government. Is it moral to force others into your belief system? If it is right and moral to be a Christian, is it right and moral to make laws mandating that everybody convert? Only individuals are moral actors, not government. A democracy is isn't moral or immoral, but derives is ability to lead from the people, not somebody who wishes to impose his will on everybody else.

If your beliefe system does not allow you to participate in a democratic government because you believe that you cannot represent the will of the people when it conflicts with your own views, then don't get involved in a legislative role. Having strong convictions will eliminate you from many potential roles in life. Just accept it and move on.

If a political party does not seek to exercise a persuasive function, one which seeks to educate the public regarding the consequences and wisdom of particular, and competing, courses of action, but instead serves as a cipher for majority whims, then it really is nothing more than an institution seeking a mandate for 4 years of rule.  Sometimes, the market fails.  Athansius contra mundum.  Though it seemed the whole world opposed the truth in his day, he held fast to the true faith, and eventually was vindicated.

Market failures are usually an excuse used by somebody who is unwilling to admit that the masses of the stupid may actually be more intelligent than he is. How do you know hen the market fails and when it just happen to chose the best of many terrible outcomes? When people disagree with market outcomes, they always like to cry out about its failure.

Government isn't about what is right or wrong, especially a democratic government. It is about what will work best. It is good for you to donate all the time and resources you can to charity, but it is bad for the government to force you to do it either with laws or a punative tax burden.

So you get the tyrrany of the majority but at least its better than the tyrrany of every little minority group.

Nobody says that parties shouldn't try to persuade, but when it comes to actual legislation, the people should be free to chose the direction of the people. Anything else is just a step backwards.

for the government to enact a statute with which some segment of the population might disagree?  Why is it wrong to attempt to structure legislation with a view towards the good?  What moral precept binds us to the embrace of democratic majoritarianism, contrary to more than two millenia of Western political thought and practice, and, more pertinently for us as Americans, to the thought of the Founders?  Most legislation is not merely enacted preference satisfaction, but enacted morality; why, then, is it prima facie immoral to inject moral considerations into politics?  What is the nature of the authority ascribed in your conception of government to the pragmatic consideration of what works best?  Do voters employ moral considerations in their evaluations of competing candidates and platforms?  If so, are they wrong to do so?  Are any moral judgments regarding the political sphere permitted; and, if so, how are these to be distinguished from those that are illigitimate?  If, in weighing possible future states of affairs, people are doing nothing more, as in your example, than maximizing preferences (does preference = pleasure, as in utilitarian theory?), is it ever possible to determine or judge that a decision is incorrect?

  The point of my questions, which you will doubtless miss, is that preference satisfaction is not all there is to life, economics and politics.  Human beings do not function so reductionistically, but bring to bear in their evaluations a diversity of factors, some of which are moral and aesthetic, among others.  Frankly, who gives a fig whether "the people" want abortion-on-demand, in some ultimate sense, because this policy better satisfies their preferences?  If they do, so what?  Persuade them that they are wrong; that abortion is wrong.  And don't try to dodge the issue by relegating the legislator to the role of cipher; he possesses the faculties of judgment and freedom of will, and no moral percept binds him to slavishly follow every whim of his constituents.  That is why we have the form of government created by our founders, among other things.  They had reasons - sound ones, in fact - for rejecting any form of national plebiscite, which, I reiterate, no moral precept requires, or even suggests.

  And drop the tired posture of anti-authoritarianism.  That old, dessicated shibboleth not only has no purchase on my imagination, it has no meaning.  All law is authoritative, whether it is me lobbying for laws against abortion, or you decreeing that moral categories must be excised from political analysis.  Authority is as inevitable as social orthodoxy.  And, please, refrain from the use of straw men - it is a form of false witness - such as "forced conversions"; if the examples of abortion and gay "marriage" I have utilized represent instances of attempted forced conversions, I fear that the terms "force" and "conversion" have been evacuated of meaning.  

  Last question: were the people to demand unfettered access to abortion, and even the infanticide proposed by Peter Singer, would they be right to make such demands?  Sometimes the market fails, because people are fallible.

You seem to have some strange idealized notion that government can do anything, pass any law, and not have any negative consequences when a large chunk of the populace doesn't agree with it. Inherent in your theocratic idealism is the idea that the electorate are little kids that need to be subservient to the adult pols who know better.

Like I already said, the fathers of the countries were just like the elites of today in their unwaranted fear of the masses. There is a great new book out called the Wisdom of Crowds that gives a number of examples on why the masses are smarter than any small group. If you want to force your moral precepts on everybody else, at least be honest about your disdain for democracy and everybody who disagrees with you.

Government's job isn't to enforce some abstract morality that its population doesn't agree with. It can enforce the morality of majority because that still allows for a reasonable peace. If you don't like the morality that is agreed to that much, and you feel an absolute necessity to force others to act like you want, then you can either (1) move to another country that either isn't a democracy or more in line with your own ideas or (2) try to convince people to change their beliefs so that the dominant morality changes too. What you should be trying to do is reverting to back to a quasi-facist policymaking paradigm that says you should forces others to obey by your minority stance.

There is a very important issue of why we chose democracy over other system of government. It is not because it causes everybody to act properly, but because it allows us to live in relative peace compared to other systems that try to force others to obey certain moral precepts. You wouldn't strengthen legislation against divorce to abide by whatever Christian sect you happen to belong to, so why do the same for things like gay marriage. Even though most people don't agree with abortion, creating laws against it tends to create bigger problems as it pushes it underground and makes it even more difficult to curtain as it becomes unseen.

Do voters employ moral considerations in their evaluations of competing candidates and platforms?  If so, are they wrong to do so?

You don't even understand what I'm saying. Of course they do. And they should. The government can safely enforce a law that 80% of the people agree with based on morality, however when only 20% agree with it, that law is going to have some major problems and negatively impact our ability to live with each other. Riots in the street in the name of God may be what you are looking for, but some of us would rather just live our lives without all that. We understand that we can make a bigger difference if we don't piss the rest of the population off.

The point of my questions, which you will doubtless miss, is that preference satisfaction is not all there is to life, economics and politics.

No, you clearly missed the point. I never said that morality doesn't play a part in chosing legislation or leaders. I said that government is amoral, and people are the only moral actors.

And don't try to dodge the issue by relegating the legislator to the role of cipher; he possesses the faculties of judgment and freedom of will, and no moral percept binds him to slavishly follow every whim of his constituents.

Ah yes. Facism from Republicans. I never would have though. Oh wait, of course I would have because the party has turned into the party of facist tendencies: pass whatever legislation we want even though it isn't liked, elections are just a formality to get into power and no real meaning in them, the presidency is a four year dictoatorship, screw the electorate.

You don't quote the founders like Scripture. They were not infallible, and their elistest views were quite repugnant. They were wrong about many things, especially when it came to understanding other people besides their own class. I grew up in an American Indian family, so I also grew up with a dislike for some of the founders of America. A few hundred years of systematic extermination tends to do that to a group of people.

Last question: were the people to demand unfettered access to abortion, and even the infanticide proposed by Peter Singer, would they be right to make such demands?  Sometimes the market fails, because people are fallible.

Textbook strawmen. And what would happen if magical aliens came to Earth to plant Jelly Bean gardens? First, yes democracy can put you into ugly hypotheticals. However, your authoritarian view makes it much easier. What would happen if Peter Singer was actually placed in a position of power and allowed to create the law around his hyper-utilitarian framework? Democracy provides the best check against these happenings because it means that a majority of the nation would have to lose their minds. Second, its not going to happen. If democacy bother you so much or you have so little faith in the American electorate, maybe you should join that fundy succession movement.

Like I said earlier. How do you know when a market fails and when it is just chosing the best of many ugly worlds? Well, if markets are at all efficient, you can't. Just because you don't understand the outcome that a market gives us, such as the winner of the election coming up, doesn't mean it failed. More likely it means you are not as intelligent as the giant brain. People fail, but groups are much much much better than individuals. Everybody single person the the group can be wrong, but the group as a whole can still be right.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I have to be leaving to Burning Man tonight to go and associate with the rest of the poeple that want to create abortion-on-demand and outlaw Christianity.

Glenn - even though it wasn't the crux of your post, I feel the need to set the record state on abortion in PA.

From the numbers I've seen, PA would probably be the only northeast state that would be pro-life.  We have a lot of Reagan Democrats and social conservatives in PA, but likewise, a lot of moderate to liberal Republicans.  Still, PA is a pretty socially conservative state once you get outside of the Philadelphia area (where Toomey still grabbed about 43% of the vote in the primary).

Even our Democrats are fairly conservative.  Our last Democratic governor before Ed Rendell was the staunchly pro-life Bob Casey, and three of our six Democrats in the House received 100 ratings from National Right to Life in 2003.

spouting such meaningless twaddle as "theocratic idealism".  It not only discredits your argument by structuring as an enormous straw man, it reveals that you either do not understand the entire sweep of Western political thought, or have dismissed it with a cavalier wave.  As you do when you summarily dismiss the views of the Founders as repugnant, on grounds of their "elitism".  

  Were the Founders theocratic idealists, because they believed that the passions which seize the great masses of people from time to time may be unruly and irrational, and that, therefore, a representative from of government, which not only allows for the expression of the opinions of the people, but their filtering through the deliberative structures of the constitutional system, best provides for the protection of fundamental liberties?  Were they?  Your opinion that they were elitists, and therefore repugnant, is ill-informed, even risible, and that because it is not only the case that the wisdom of their deliberations has been confirmed throughout Western history, but because it is also an incontestable fact of human nature that people are subject to the passions, those unruly, inordinate and ultimately irrational impulses of the mind and spirit brought on by our prideful desires for pleasurable states of affairs.  You know this.  It's called Orthodox theology.  And this fact of human nature is whay there are constitutional amendments, most particularly the Bill of Rights.  I happen not to care for "rights talk", but I understand the impetus behind it: some things are regarded as too important to be subject to continual plebiscite.  Now you may not be coerced by the federal government to belong to a specific religion, now you may.  Now you have the right to bear arms for self-defense, now you do not.  That would work about as well as the Weimar Republic.  Or is it just "fascism" to observe that the Weimar Republic sucked?

   Oh, another thing.  Do you even know what Fascism is?  You seem to assume that "fascism" occurs whenever the government maintains legislation that some percentage of the population opposes.  I dare say that I have read more than I would ever have cared to read on the subject of fascism, but unpopular legislation doesn't figure in any of the exegeses of fascist philosophy.  In our system of government, so corrupted by the "elitism" of its Founders, we can vote to turn out of office those who enact "unpopular" legislation; it is the furthest thing from fascism, whatever you seem to believe that term denotes.  

  In fact, one would have a much more persuasive case were one to argue that a regime such as the one judicial usurpation is bringing into being in our nation is fascist.  One would be off track, but closer: after all, majorities of the American people oppose both the abortion "jurisprudence" of the Supreme Court, as well as the judicial imposition of same-sex "marriages".  Nevertheless, short of constitutional amendment, there is no way for the people to register their DEMOCRATIC preferences on these matters without having them rebuffed by some ELITIST judge.  

   The question I was driving at in my previous post, which you seem to have missed, is this: what is the nature of the moral warrant you ascribe to your construction of democratic propriety?  The function this idea has in your posts clearly indicates that it is a moral notion, yet it is one which just as clearly seems to exclude the moral categories that are traditionally brought to bear on political analysis: the people should have the laws they want, however wicked and foolish they happen to be.  What then, is the basis of your moral prescription, your imposition (just as any legislation will impose upon someone a moral doctrine) upon my liberty of advocacy?  And, while we are at it, what is this strange notion of governments being amoral?  This is just dimestore nominalism.  Law is enacted morality, and confers upon the governments which enact and enforce it a moral quality, because the law is something which stands outside of those participating in that government, judging them: that is why the Soviet Union was rightly referred to as an evil empire.  Not only were those who created it evil, the system they birthed perpetuated evil, and was therefore evil itself.  Moreover, governments are moral in nature because law possesses an educative function; permit something by law, and people eventually come to ask, "What's wrong with that?"  

   Finally, to reiterate, political markets fail.  Venezuela is a case in point; the nation is worse off, by every measure of social well-being, under Chavez, despite his (partially manufactured) popularity.  So this Liebnizian "the political market brings us the best of all possible worlds" should be dropped.  Sometimes, as well, the collective wisdom of the masses is just foolishness.  The majority of the world's Christians aren't Orthodox; it does not follow that I am mistaken in my belief that Orthodoxy is the faith of the Apostles.