Week 26:  Censorship

In his play, “Mrs. Warren’s Profession,” George Bernard Shaw wrote an introduction entitled, “The Author’s Apology,” in response to a critical response to the first performance of the play. The play, which is an indictment of society’s role in the institution of prostitution, faced the threat of censorship by the British government at the dawn of the 20^th century. The tongue-in-cheek apology is less an apology for writing about the titillating topic and more about the danger of silencing discussion on matters of societal and moral import.

In his apology, Shaw writes, “All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”

It was a recent CNN interview with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki that called to mind Shaw’s apology. In that interview, Wojcicki said YouTube’s policy is to remove (i.e., censor) any content its censors feel are “problematic” or “medically unsubstantiated.” As I wondered about the medical credentials of YouTube’s censors, which would enable them to understand what is medically substantiated and what is not, she rambled on and answered my question. She said, “Anything that goes against WHO [World Health Organization] recommendations would be a violation of our policy and so remove is another really important part of our policy.”

Ms. Wojcicki deserves credit, I suppose, for having the guts to admit publicly to her company’s active censorship of content, as opposed to the censorship taking place on Facebook, which that company chalks up to a technical glitch in its anti-spam system.

Before going further in our discussion, kind reader, I want to make a brief digression. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The amendment, as it relates to speech and petitioning, is designed to prohibit government censorship of these activities by the people. This is an essential concept – prohibiting government censorship.

In a world, as intended by the Founders, government interaction with and influence on private enterprise would be severely limited. In such a world, companies like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter would be truly private endeavors and would be at liberty to create and execute their own rules, as they relate to users of their platforms. If YouTube, for example, wanted to ban all content related to free market economists, that would be its right to do so. If Facebook, for example, wanted to ban all content related to Marx and Hegel, that would be its right to do so. We do not, however, live in such a world. Through governmental subsidies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, social media companies (including YouTube and Facebook) have abrogated their right to independence, vis-à-vis the First Amendment.

Receiving subsidies from the government, companies essentially become agents of the government. It is, in a sense, a soft fascism. But it is that fascist relationship that affords you and me, the taxpaying citizens of the United States, the very reasonable expectation that our rights, as they pertain to our relationship with the government should now pertain to our relationships with companies that receive our support through funds that were taken from us in the form of taxes. Any argument to the contrary, I believe, lacks a sound logical foundation. Nevertheless, it is always an intellectual delight to entertain and thoughtfully consider contrary positions.

If my positions meets with your approval, it makes sense that these social media providers should be guarantors to their “community” members of their rights to free speech. In other words, censorship should be anathema to the “community,” and these platforms (e.g., YouTube, Facebook) should not engage in any form of censorship. Once they do, they prostitute themselves to the powers and/or governments that would seek to control the people.

Here endeth the political digression against social media purveyors engaging in censorship. There is, however, a practical argument against such censorship. Censorship stifles innovation, or “progress” as Shaw described it.

Remember that, in the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras determined that the Earth was round, an idea that would be met with skepticism until the late 15^th century when Columbus sailed to the New World.

Remember that, in 1633, Galileo’s promotion of heliocentrism was condemned by the Roman Inquisition, and in addition to house arrest for the rest of his life, his works were prohibited from being published, to which attests their inclusion in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a listing of works deemed heretical by the principal power of the day – the church.

Remember that, in the 1850s, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory began a paradigm shift that would impact the treatment of disease. It, too, was scoffed at and rejected by many, including those in the established hierarchies of the medical and scientific professions.

Remember that, in 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” putting forth the theory of natural selection, which challenged the established belief that species were brought forth in their current state and had not changed for millennia. The so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” was one case in which the theory of evolution was litigated, made famous in the movie, “Inherit the Wind.”

These are but a few examples of major scientific breakthroughs that came from outside the scientific establishment. Contemporaries of these great thinkers did all they could to silence them. Part of the reason for silencing dissenters and innovative thinkers is that it threatens those in power who hold beliefs that benefit themselves. New thinkers may herald a loss of power to those in power, and that very power is often a source of wealth. Contrary ideas are harbingers of destruction for monopolies of thought.

When one contemplates power, control and monopolies of thought, organizations like the WHO, in which people like Wojcicki place so much faith, come to mind. In many ways, the WHO supersedes like agencies in the sovereign nations of the world, such as the NIH, FDA and CDC in the United States. The WHO represents in every conceivable way the establishment. Like the multinational corporations that cause fear and anger among so many, the WHO is a multinational organization. Unlike multinational corporations, which are effectively kept in check by other corporations, organizations like NATO, the UN, and its subsidiaries, like WHO, have no competitors to keep them in check. They are monopolies.

The only real checks to such organizations are you and me, the people of the nations of the Earth. The various physicians and scientists, who have questioned the global response to COVID-19 and who have offered alternate approaches to addressing the pandemic, have been the casualties in the battle for debate and for discussion of competing ideas. Social media, particularly YouTube and Facebook, have been actively removing content that challenges the establishment.

Are we to believe that the only physician-scientists capable of saving us from the virus are at the CDC or WHO? A simple search reveals that these organizations are rife with corruption. This is not to say that all individuals in these organizations are corrupt, but rather to say that the leaders in these organizations have vested interests in satisfying their benefactors, benefactors whose interests lie in aggrandizing their power and wealth. I’ll forego further discussion on this point, mindful of the fact that I may be labeled a conspiracist.

Are the ideas of the establishment (i.e., the approaches to addressing COVID-19) so fragile that they cannot withstand open debate or the challenge of alternate ideas? Are the “community” members so doltish that they cannot read and evaluate competing ideas? If the answer to either question is “yes,” humanity is in a grave situation indeed.

We have abdicated our ability – and I would say our duty – to engage in rational thought to a host of unknown content editors employed by social media giants. We have permitted our right to free speech and protest to be abridged. In effect, we have may as well have stabbed Pythagoras in the bean field, condemned Galileo to a life of house arrest, rejected the life-saving work of Pasteur, and branded Darwin a heretic.

Be it the government directly, or indirectly through surrogates like YouTube and Facebook, censorship threatens humanity’s progress. It threatens innovation. It threatens our very lives. As we move through the summer and into the fall and its election, let us consider who will support free expression and who will censor even one citizen’s voice. After all, if one can be silenced, all can be silenced.

Week 27: Inclusivity

In 1883, Emma Lazarus wrote a Petrarchan sonnet as part of a fundraising effort to build a pedestal for La Liberté éclairant le monde, a gift from the people of France, which we call The Statue of Liberty. Lazarus, a poet, a tax reform advocate and an active opponent to anti-Semitism, wrote:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Lazarus’ poem describes many of the people who came to the shores of America, as well as those who continue to come to this nation, this City on a Hill, to borrow a metaphor from the Sermon on the Mount. Particularly since the 17^th century, people, suffering from all forms of adversity, have traversed the seas in the hope of a better life. As it quite often does, from adversity pullulates prosperity. For centuries, the tired and poor, the huddled masses and the wretched refuse, the homeless and the tempest-tost, in other words the human beings oppressed and rejected by their native lands, have come to this land to have a new start at life.

Exiles, refugees and immigrants – you and me, our parents and grandparents, our ancestors – not satisfied with the social contracts of their homelands, sought and continue to seek a more equitable and a more inclusive social contract. They seek, as we all do, a social contract that will promote our happiness and empower us to thrive, not at the arbitrary benevolence of a monarch or tyrant, nor at the inconstant will of a mob, but by the innovation of our minds, the industriousness of our hands and the spirit of our hearts. Each of us, as free agents to pursue our goals, ultimately function to advance the goals of our society. It is precisely because of that freedom, the freedom to pursue infinitely diverse interests, that we are an exceptional, diverse and inclusive nation.

Lady Liberty’s torch is that of imprisoned lightning. Remember that it was during the Titanomakhy that the Cyclopes gave to Zeus the lightning bolt, a weapon that inspired fear and submission in immortals and mortals alike. To the gods of Olympus, mortals were mere objects for their manipulation and perverse amusement. So, too, were subjects and masses to the leaders of tyrannical states. So, too, are they today. Tyrants, regardless of their title, cause their peoples live in fear and submission. In America, fear and submission are not to be used as tools of the government. Our mother, the Mother of Exiles, has restrained such lightning bolts.

Lady Liberty, Lazarus tells us, cries, “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” Perhaps she is referring to the democracies of ancient Greece. After all, the “brazen giant” to whom she refers is none other than the Colossus of Rhodes, Rhodes being a Grecian island, whose inhabitants were governed by democracy.

In forming our government, the Framers, who were students of not only the Enlightenment but also of Antiquity, knew all too well the hazards of a simple majority ruling the whole of a society. Democracies have an inherent flaw: a proclivity toward mob rule. This is particularly dangerous when considering the size of the states. Should a populous state dictate what happens to the people of a smaller state? More broadly, should half plus one of the citizens, divided along any line one chooses (e.g., gender, race, age, religion, etc.) decide how the other half minus one should live? No, the Framers devised a fairer, more inclusive system for governing our social contract.

Between autocracy and democracy, which are two extremes but both tyrannical, there is a system of self-government that is guided by a vision shared by the whole and that still respects the individual. It is a representative republic. In a republic, virtue and love of the society is the focus of the people, to paraphrase Montesquieu in his work, “The Spirit of the Laws.” To quote Montesquieu, though, when referring to a republic, “Corruption seldom begins with the people.”

This brings us to the third part of former Vice President Biden’s tripartite vision for America.

“We’ve got to make sure our democracy includes everyone. Our politics is broken and excludes too many Americans. Until we fix campaign finance, voting rights, and gerrymandering, it will continue to get more polarized, more ugly, and more mean.”

Among my greatest political pet peeves, the use of the term “democracy” to describe the American system of government ranks on high. The use of the term “democracy” by politicians either exposes their ignorance or betrays their deceit. If Mr. Biden, or any other politician who uses the term “democracy” to describe our system of government, and in doing so believes he or she is accurately characterizing it, has no business whatsoever representing We the People or ruling over us. If, on the other hand, a politician uses this term to stir within the citizenry suspicion, fear and hatred of one group toward another, he or she has no place in the halls of government; instead, he or she should be named the traitor that they are and dragged from their seat in office. This leads us to a question: Are Biden and his ilk (i.e., many other actual and would-be politician) simply careless and stupid, or are they deceptive and treacherous?

Mr. Biden’s first claim is that our political system is exclusionary. This claim would be laughable if there weren’t some truth in it. I doubt very much, though, that Mr. Biden and I view it as being exclusionary for the same reason. I infer that he believes there to be institutional exclusion. Not since August 26, 1920, when the 19^th Amendment was passed, prohibiting the government from denying the right to vote based on sex, has anyone been constitutionally prohibited from participating in the political process. Additionally, cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1965 and 1966 outlawed the application of poll taxes in federal elections and in all other elections, respectively, constitutionally prohibiting conditions placed on an individual and his or her right to vote. Furthermore, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, essentially duplicating the intent of the 14^th, 15^th and 19^th Amendments. As one can see, our political process is, indeed, quite inclusionary. A citizen’s right to participate in our politics is enshrined in our very Constitution.

I would say exclusion does exist, but it exists in an insidious, extra-legislative manner. One need only read articles about intimidation tactics employed in elections during the past two decades. Reports exist of Republican operatives misinforming Democrat voters about voting locations. Reports exist of Democrat operatives standing outside polling stations in paramilitary gear and holding weapons.

Antithetical to the intentions of the Founders, politics is now a lifelong career. Political office is a path to power, and as we have discussed before, power has a corrupting influence. It is power that leads to the issues that Mr. Biden raises.

Consequently, I think there is one solution and one solution only. It is not, as Mr. Biden suggests, campaign finance reform, yet more voting rights legislation or mitigating gerrymandering. I firmly believe that those are just political shell games. I seriously doubt any politician will address any of those issues in a way that benefits the citizenry and their representation in the life of our nation’s government. I have addressed these issues jointly, above. I will not waste your time, kind reader, nor mine by addressing them severally.

The only solution I can conceive that will bring the people’s voice back into the political process is the institution of term limits for all members of Congress. The result would be the destruction of political machines, which favor big money and prop up politicians who are in their positions for their own wealth and power, as opposed to the benefit of their constituents. If those in Congress were limited in the number of terms they could serve – in total or even just consecutively – there would be greater opportunity for more of our fellow citizens to run and serve. There’s real inclusivity. And because politicians would not be in it for the long haul, there would be no reason for big-money individuals and lobbyists to invest their money, because any given politician would be out of office and no longer of use to them. Voter manipulation would be mitigated, because a politician would no longer be using such manipulation for their long-term prosperity. The same line of thought would apply to the need for gerrymandering.

Earlier in life, I was vehemently opposed to term limits. I thought if a person wanted to run and his or her constituents wanted to elect him or her, so be it. As I’ve gotten older, though, I have realized the truth in Lord Acton’s admonition about power. It leads to corruption, as Montesquieu said, and those who are pure of heart tend to be chewed up and spit out by the political machinery of the long-term office holders.

Sadly, I do not think term limits are possible. I cannot see a practicable way to make them a reality.

Therefore, for me, it comes down to one question. Who has actually done something about instilling a virtuous love of country in the citizenry, and who has benefitted from using exclusion as an issue year after year without advancing any real change?

Week 28: The World Stage

The “world stage” is the second of three posts exploring the tripartite vision that candidate Joe Biden expressed for America. On his website, he states, “We’ve got to demonstrate respected leadership on the world stage. The world is facing inescapable challenges: a rapidly changing climate, the risk of nuclear conflict, trade wars, a rising China and an aggressive Russia, millions of refugees seeking shelter and security, and attacks on universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. The next president must repair our relationships with our allies and stand up to strongmen and thugs on the global stage to rally the world to meet these challenges. We can reclaim our longstanding position as the moral and economic leader of the world.”

Let us consider the “world stage” by first grounding ourselves in advice proffered by our first President. In George Washington’s farewell address to the People of the United States in 1796, he wrote, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” His vision, which one might characterize as a sort of political isolationism, began eroding to varying degrees during the 19^th century and was all but forgotten the 20^th century. His vision, though, wasn’t one of complete isolationism. He saw the benefit of free and open trade among the nations of the world. With the exception of the manufacture of materiel for engaging in war, which he felt a nation should have a good degree of self-sufficiency, Washington’s economic philosophy was well aligned with that of Adam Smith. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776, the same year the colonists issued the Declaration of Independence and two decade prior to Washington’s farewell, had an influence on Washington and other leaders of the time.

Regrettably, Washington’s advice seems more distant than ever.

Climate Change

Climate change seems to be a central issue for politicians, one based on a “consensus” of scientists. There is, of course, evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising, along with sea levels and evaporating ice shelves at the poles. The question at the hear of the climate change issue is the cause. Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout the life of our planet. Some claim that climate change is caused predominantly by humans. Some say that this claim is unproven. Progressives regularly accuse conservatives of ignoring science, yet it tends to be progressives who put forth the “consensus” concept related to climate change. Is consensus science?

As is my custom, I will not tell you, kind reader, what to think about this topic: climate change. I will simply challenge you to think. Consider the article “Consensus Science and the Peer Review” from the September 2009 issue of the journal Molecular Imaging and Biology. It quotes a lecture given by physician, producer and writer Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Crichton stated, “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” He continues, “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Science demands a rigorous process of trial and error. It demands reproducibility of results. Rather than take climate change, as proposed by a collection of scientists – and yes – politicians, at face value, take the time to review the data, for and against, and determine for yourself if human-caused climate change is in fact scientific fact or merely consensus. I would suggest that leadership on the world stage on this or any issue should be based in fact and not on consensus or supposition.

War and Aggresion

With the exception of the following years – 1796-97, 1807-09, 1826, 1828-30, 1897, 1935-50, 1976-78, 1997 and 2000 – the United State of America has been engaged in some war or significant military conflict since its founding, which is more than 90 percent of the time we have been a nation. If history, with all due respect to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, informs the future, it serves a nation well to understand the key factors of success in the theater of war. According to Carl Von Clausewitz, in his work “On War,” the principal moral elements of war include, “the skill of the commander, the experience and courage of the troops, and their patriotic spirit.” In terms of commanders, our nation’s generals, admirals and other military leaders should be excellent students in the theory and practice of warfighting. In terms of the experience and courage of troops, our nation’s military recruiters, drill sergeants and other instructors bring volunteers into the armed forces and prepare them with the expertise they need to be confident in their warfighting abilities, which enhances courage in the face of conflict. Von Clausewitz observed that military theory and practice exercised by commanders and troops have evolved such that there is, more or less, some parity among the nations.

“It cannot be denied,” von Clausewitz states, “therefore, that as things stand at present proportionately greater scope is given to the troops’ patriotic spirit and combat experience.” Given the fact that our nation has been engaged in warfighting for almost its entire history, our troops do indeed have combat experience. Thus, for the United States, our principal, differentiating resource for military success must be found in patriotic spirit.

Consider aggression by China, Russia and North Korea throughout their spheres of influence. True, they may have skilled commanders and well-practiced troops, but I dare suggest that they may lack that patriotic spirit, at least lack the degree of spirit that the American warfighter has. I suggest this because of the political oppression the people of these nations – the “masses,” as people in Marxist societies are called. How can purity of heart in terms of patriotic spirit exist in a society that is based on coercion. I claim that it cannot. Such purity must be freely given, and that freedom requires liberty for a people.

It is in enkindling the flame of patriotic spirit that the Commander-in-Chief can play a significant role. As we look at candidates for office, be it the presidency or in the legislature, it is important to consider who speaks to the patriotic spirit. Who embraces American exceptionalism? Who focuses, instead, on our nation’s faults, real or contrived? Regarding our real faults, who uses such issues as talking points, and who takes action to correct these faults and produces results? Which candidates foster national pride among the citizenry, and which candidates foment shame? This is not to suggest that problems be swept under the rug. Instead, it’s to say that we should not continue electing people who fail to solve problems, so that they can continue to have the problem as an election-year topic every two, four or six years.

Trade

The topic of trade harkens back to Washington’s farewell letter and the notion of “extending our commercial relations.” As an unabashed, free-market capitalist, I look to the lessons of history, and it is crystal clear that the human condition for people at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder has improved the nearer a society approaches a system of free and open markets. Furthermore, in any society that has departed from such a system for organizing economic activity, as has the United States over the course of nearly a century, inequity takes hold and socioeconomic mobility eventually grinds to a halt.

Progressives denounce capitalism as an oppressive system that exploits people. This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding as to what capitalism is. It is a system of economic organization in which all exchange is voluntary. A person freely chooses where to work or not to work. A person freely chooses to exchange goods for other goods or for money. No one is coerced to engage in any form of exchange. As Adam Smith described in “Wealth of Nations,” when each person pursues his or her own self-interest, he or she promotes the self-interest of another. It creates a ripple effect that advances the interests of society, as a whole. For example, I want a pencil, so that I can jot down notes for my weekly blog. Another person has a pencil to sell. We may engage in a voluntary exchange if I have something of value to the other person, such as money for example. If we agree on the price, we can make an exchange, and we are both better off than just a moment before. If we don’t agree on the price, I may seek out another seller of pencils to see if I can get a better price. What I don’t do in a capitalist system is force the pencil seller to give me the pencil for less than he or she is willing to sell it, nor does society force me to pay what I perceive to be the unacceptable price of the seller. Additionally, society does not subsidize either party to effect the proposed exchange. Under capitalism, exchange of goods and services does not happen unless all interested parties benefit from mutually acceptable terms. This example does not end with the exchange between myself and the seller. In the wonderful story, "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read,” which was published in the December 1958 issue of The Freeman, Read describes the countless number of people from around the globe who also enter into mutually beneficial exchanges to create a simple pencil. Those processing the graphite, harvesting and milling the wood, mining the copper, producing the paint, and farming the rubber, all people from around the world, speaking different languages and holding different beliefs, come together harmoniously to make the simple pencil that I would endeavor to purchase voluntarily. This is a very real and a very practical illustration of Smith’s “invisible hand.” It is not mere theory. It does indeed work, as Smith describes.

Warnings of monopolies and the exploitation inherent in them are often mentioned by skeptics of capitalism as an argument against this form of economic organization. Again, the record of history is conclusive that monopolies cannot exist, at least not for very long, without the support and influence of the state. Legislators allow themselves to be bought and paid for by companies and lobbyists in exchange for legislation favorable to their contributors and harmful to their contributors’ competitors. This arrangement is not capitalism. At best it may be described as crony capitalism; however, I thing the more accurate term is fascism.

Let us return to the “world stage.” According The Heritage Foundation’s “2020 Index of Economic Freedom,” the United States ranks 17 among 180 ranked nations in terms of economic freedom. Granted, we are in the top 10 percent, but leadership in trade begs the question, what must we do to improve our standing among nations? According to the index, the areas that present opportunities for improvement include: government integrity, tax burden, government spending, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, and trade freedom.

As we look to the platforms of candidates in the upcoming election, who will restore integrity to government? Beware the temptation to assume that one candidate has integrity, just because you think another lacks it. Taking the candidates for the Office of the President, I hear many say that President Trump lacks integrity. I will not debate that here. However, I think it is a mistake to assume that Mr. Biden does have integrity, just because it’s said that Trump lacks it. One need only look to Biden’s boasting in a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (a dubious organization, to be sure, but a discussion for another time) that he would withhold $1 billion dollars in loans unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company for which his son served as a member of its board of directors. One need only look to his verbal assaults of people who question him on the campaign trail, even challenging one to fight. If one exercises fair judgment, they will not only investigate Trumps integrity, they will also investigate Biden’s, as well as any candidate’s integrity. We absolutely should be concerned about the integrity of our government and who will serve to elevate it.

As responsible citizens, we should similarly explore candidates’ economic and tax policies and whether such policies will enhance American’s ability to engage in market activities freely and will provide employment opportunities for our citizens. As responsible citizens, we should, in my opinion, reclaim authority and responsibility for our lives and for our fellow citizens. Over the course of a century, we have abdicated more and more of our individual sovereignty to the state. Consequently, government spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. From 1790 to 1930, spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded five percent, save during the Civil War and World War I. During and following the Great Depression, spending as a percentage of GDP rose quickly to a point at which it has hovered since 1970, fluctuating up and down around the 20 percent mark. At present, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for more than half of government spending. A little less than 25 percent represents military spending. The remaining quarter or so goes to protection of natural resources, interest on the national debt and a big category that covers “all other.” Such profligate spending by our economically licentious leaders doesn’t just hurt the economy, it has a ripple effect that damages our standing in the other indicators of economic freedom mentioned above, including trade freedom. Through disastrous management of our national economy, those in government, at all levels, look for any and every way to squeeze more money out of what should be private, voluntary exchanges. Collectively, they form an unwelcome third party that bastardizes free market capitalism and free trade and renders their fruits rotten through the embedded cost of burdensome regulations that add little real value and through direct effect of taxes on the costs of goods and services. Anti-capitalists demand that we look at the terrible of effects capitalism is having today. What they fail, time and time again, to recognize is that we are not living in a free-market, capitalist society, and we haven’t been for nearly 100 years.

As we look to our would-be leaders, question which will restore the trade leadership of the United States through sound economic and taxation policies that limit the role and interference of government and that promote voluntary arrangements of exchange – exchange of goods, services and labor.

Human Rights and Freedom

Human rights and freedoms, by definition, are inherent in each person, as we discussed in the Week 52 post. Rights are not dispensed by government, and the lack of restriction on citizens’ rights promote freedom. Restrictions on rights limit freedom. As we discussed in Week 52, there may be benefits or entitlements that a society decides to confer on its citizens, but an intellectually honest discussion of human rights cannot permit these to be called rights. Doing so diminishes the meaning of the word “right.” I have no inherent right to the labor of another person, just as they have no right to my labor. “Rights” to healthcare or to education are perfect examples. Once we go down the path of accepting these things as “rights,” we are compelled go down a parallel path, a path that leads to servitude. It enslaves the doctor or nurse, the teacher or professor to you and me. If I have a right to these things, how can the doctor, nurse, teacher or professor refuse them to me? Having discussed rights before, I will not belabor the point this week. Be mindful of one more thing: rights cost nothing; they are free. Only the restriction of rights and the characterization of a benefit or entitlement as a right have a cost for society, and it’s a terrible cost, financially and morally. Let us ask ourselves which candidates understand this distinction and act in a way that protects our rights and freedom.

Refugees and Immigration

Economic policy and respect for human rights influence the immigration crisis, a topic we explored in the Week 40 post. I will not repeat that in-depth analysis here. Suffice it to say that nations have borders, and those borders are like the cover of a book, separating its contents from other books on the shelf. Like a book, a nation has a story to tell. Its contents are informed by its laws, its respect for those laws, its culture, and yes, its economic system and the entitlements it does or does not offer.

With regard to refugees (and asylum seekers), the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute states, “The United States has historically led the world in terms of formal refugee resettlement, accepting more refugees annually than any other country. With significant cuts in refugee admissions by the Trump administration, however, the United States fell behind Canada in 2018 as the top resettlement country. Approximately 22,500 refugees were resettled in the United States during fiscal year (FY) 2018. Beyond accepting refugees for resettlement, the United States also grants humanitarian protection to asylum seekers who present themselves at U.S. ports of entry or claim asylum from within the country; in FY 2017 (the most recent data available), the United States granted asylum status to 26,568 individuals.” Part of the reason for cutting the number of refugees was to accommodate an increase in the number of asylees. It is important to differentiate the two. Refugees apply for resettlement prior to entering the country. Asylees apply for resettlement after they have entered the country. With programs like catch-and-release, a growing number of people have entered the country without going through an official point of entry (i.e., illegally) and then claimed asylum. This growing number puts pressure on the immigration system, thus necessitating a reduction in those being accepted under a refugee status. The point to be considered is that things are not as clear-cut as politicians or the media would have us believe. It is an issue that involves human life – real people with a desperate desire for a better life. As an American citizenry, we owe it to them to understand the issues and principles involved and to reject the spoon-fed half-truths of those in power.

America is constantly criticized for enforcing its borders, particularly its southern border. It is exceptionally ironic that the same nations that criticize the United States for its border enforcement policies are ones that have some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world, an extreme example being the Holy See (and being a Roman Catholic, this hypocrisy troubles me greatly). Like so many issues that represent humanitarian crises (e.g., homelessness, generational poverty, failing schools, etc.), this is yet one more issue that politicians love to talk about during election cycles but fail to improve during their tenure in office. Remember that the United States, save Native Americans, is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants bring richness to our culture, diligence to the workplace, and synergy to our endeavors to create a more perfect Union. Despite propaganda to the contrary, President Trump regularly recognizes the importance of people immigrating to America, but his opposition to illegal immigration is used to demonize him as a xenophobe and racist. What is wrong with requiring an adherence to our system of laws? Isn’t that part and parcel of the oath our leaders take – to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? In the context of immigration, consider all the candidates and find out which of them supports the rule of law, not only in immigration but in all parts of our social contract.

Standing up to Strongmen

Finally, standing up to strongmen is a bravado-laden cliché that belies sound foreign policy. Again, turning to history, it is interesting to note that conservatives tend to open America to other nations of the world. Nixon engaged with China, introducing free market capitalism, “a necessary but not sufficient” condition for political freedom, as Milton Friedman would remind us. Reagan engaged with the former Soviet Union, leading to the fall of the Iron Curtain. Trump has engaged with North Korea, which may lead to an easing of sanctions against the Hermit Kingdom, which could ease the humanitarian suffering of the people of that communist state. Carter, a moderate, especially compared to the Progressives of today, engaged with Egypt, enabling the State of Israel to exist and thrive in a part of the world populated by nations intent on its destruction. Progressives are often portrayed as “doves” militarily; yet, it is interesting to consider the trail of devastation that follows their military interventions. One need only to look at the Clinton military policies related to Africa (i.e., Rwanda and Somalia) and the Balkans (i.e., Bosnia and Kosovo), at the Bush military policies in the Middle East (for I do not consider Bush to be a true conservative), and at the Obama military policies that escalated the Bush Middle East policies, as well as his failure to stand up to Russia (e.g., his failure to support the sovereignty of the Crimea), relaying to Prime Minister Putin through  Russian President Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate with Russia after his second election to lay bare their failures.

Bravado is not equivalent to standing up to strongmen. Engagement through non-military means is the “grown-up” way of standing up to a strongman. Will reason or war alleviate the scourge of nuclear proliferation, another key point made by Mr. Biden. We’ve continued building up nuclear stockpiles over the years – granted, actual numbers do decrease, but they are substituted with an increasing lethality of newer weapons – and the number of nations with nuclear weapons continues to grow. Again, proof that the bravado of force has unintended and unwanted consequences. Again, might it be time for reason? Examine at the deeds and records of each politician. Who uses their mind, and who uses their fists, so to speak? Determine this and vote accordingly.

Week 29: The Middle Class

With the announcement April 8, that Bernie Sanders withdrew from the race for the Democrat Party’s nomination to run against Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election and with former President Obama’s endorsement, Americans now have their presumptive Democrat candidate, Joe Biden.

A former New Castle County Councilman (1970-72), former U.S. Senator from Delaware (1973-2009) and former Vice President (2009-2017), Joe Biden has spent the majority of his professional life in government. In seeking the presidency, he has set out a tripartite vision for America. In this blog and the subsequent two blogs, we will explore the issues at the heart of each part of his vision for America.

As stated on Mr. Biden’s election website, “This is Joe’s vision for America. We’ve got to rebuild the backbone of the country: The Middle Class. We’ve got to demonstrate respected leadership on the world stage. We’ve got to make sure our democracy includes everyone.”

Regarding the Middle Class, Mr. Biden states, “The middle class isn’t a number — it’s a set of values. Owning your home. Sending your kids to college. Being able to save and get ahead. Across the country, too many families are being left behind.”

Prior to exploring the values of the Middle Class, as enumerated by Mr. Biden, it may be useful to consider the preoccupation that all politicians, including Mr. Biden, have with the Middle Class.

What is the Middle Class? In a publication by the left-leaning Urban Institute, citing Pew Research Center data, 90 percent of respondents, when asked which of six social classes they identified with (i.e., upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class), identified with one of the middle class categories, while approximately two percent identified as upper class and approximately eight percent as lower class.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky characterizes the three broad classes as the “have nots,” the “have a little, want mores,” and the “haves.” Implicit in his characterization is the false notion that economic success (i.e., wealth) comes in the form of a finite pie. In other words, for one person to gain, another must lose. He sees socio-economics as a zero-sum game. One need only have the most rudimentary knowledge of economics to understand that this is not true. Rather, it is not true in societies that use economic freedom and capitalism as the organizing principles for economic activity. It is true – and gravely so – in societies that depart from the principles of economic freedom and capitalism.

Based on the numbers, it is readily apparent why politicians cater to the middle class. It’s the largest block of people, and consequently, it’s the largest block of voters. With the upper class at roughly two percent, it’s easy to demonize them with little backlash in terms of electoral success or failure. With the lower class at roughly eight percent, it’s easy to ignore them, as well, with little backlash electorally.

The struggle between the classes, as Alinsky describes it (perhaps taking his cue from Marx, Hegel and the like) – between the haves and have-nots, with the have-a-littles in the middle – evokes images of Fortuna and the fourth circle of hell in The Divine Comedy. In Canto VII of Inferno, Dante writes, “Therefore one people triumphs, and another languishes, in pursuance of her [Fortuna’s] judgment, which hidden is, as in the grass a serpent.” In the case of socio-economic classes, politicians try to engrain judgment in the minds of the middle class that is based on a false premise. This false premise is, indeed, like a serpent, hidden and waiting to strike. In the meantime, the haves and have-nots are, like the souls in the fourth circle of hell, toiling incessantly and to no avail, while effort is expended by the demons in charge to create a special narrative about the middle class. Please understand, I am not blaming or shaming the middle class. My heritage is in the middle class. People in the middle class are no better or worse than those in the upper class or the lower class. Nor are people in the upper or lower classes better or worse than those in the middle class. Each of us has absolute moral worth, regardless of our pocketbook or social calendar.

In political rhetoric, we also hear about the “hard-working” middle class. Is this to imply that those on the lower and upper ends of the socio-economic scale do not work hard? I would entreat you, kind reader, to think of people you know. I dare say that you, like me, know people in each of the socio-economic classes. I would suggest that you, like me, can think of hard workers in each of those classes. You, like me, may be able to think of idlers in each, as well. The point, simply, is that politicians try to create a romanticized image of the middle class while portraying the lower class as helpless and hapless and portraying the upper class as conniving and heartless. It harkens back to Week 38 when we examined identity politics. Class distinction is yet one more manifestation of such politics.

Writing about economic progress achieved in capitalist societies, the Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman wrote in Capitalism and Freedom, “The chief characteristic of progress and development over the past century is that it [capitalism] has freed the masses from backbreaking toil and has made available to them products and services that were formerly the monopoly of the upper class.” In Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Friedman dispelled the notion of a zero-sum game in terms of class in which some must lose for others to gain. In a free and capitalist society, he said, “The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector. That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries.”

All this is to say that we, as informed and rational citizens, should guard against class warfare and should refuse to be made pawns in politicians’ game for absolute power over us.

Mindful of the false premises upon which classist ideologies are based and ever-mindful of Lord Acton’s warning about power and corruption, let us consider the values Mr. Biden listed: home ownership, college and savings.

Since 1900, home ownership has steadily increased in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, home ownership rates have gone up from 46.5 percent in 1900 to nearly 70 percent today. That’s a wonderful thing to think about. When a person owns his or her own property, he or she tends to treat it with better care than if it were rented or otherwise borrowed. The question becomes one of what rate of home ownership is desirable or acceptable? Some people choose to rent for a variety of reasons. If a person is in a job that requires frequent moves (e.g., military), ownership may make little sense and renting is a more practical option. People right out of school often rent while saving money for a down payment on a home purchase. Some people just prefer the liberty that renting affords in terms of being free from direct responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of a domicile. Perhaps home ownership isn’t the crisis that politicians claim it is.

What has been, and again has the potential to be, a crisis is the government’s attempt to increase already high home ownership by forcing lenders to approve home loans for people without the financial stability to make payments on the loan. When this happens, the borrower defaults, thus further damaging his or her credit, and lenders’ financial stability is damaged, making it challenging to provide loans. It becomes a vicious cycle that leads to poor financial health for all involved. Evidence of this may be found by examining the Community Reinvestment Act and its relation to the 2008 financial crisis. It was another lesson in what happens when the “C students of the world,” as President Harry Truman described politicians, are let loose to plan the economy.

College may be viewed in a similar way. By this, I mean that once the government gets more involved in higher education, the worse off it will be for students and for society. In her excellent article in US News and World Report (Nov. 23, 2011), “Why the Government is to Blame for High College Costs: Federal student loans are driving up college costs and adding to the deficit,” Mary Kate Cary thoroughly described how two intentions: that a college education should be within the reach of every American and that students should be able to borrow money from the federal government in order to attend college, have had devastating unintended consequences.

From Ms. Cary’s article, then-President Obama, under pressure from Occupy Wall Street protesters, “signed legislation ending subsidies for private banks giving federally guaranteed student loans—making the federal government, not banks, the lender of choice for most students.” As with any useful or valuable thing that can be exchanged, education is a commodity, and as such its value diminishes when the market is flooded. Consequently, an increase in the number of people with an English degree, for example, makes the value of that degree less in the marketplace, just as a marketplace with an excess of welders decreases the value of each welder in terms of what he or she can charge. It’s a fundamental principle of economics that competition drives down costs. This includes the cost of labor, which translates to what a person is paid. If higher education floods the marketplace with more and more English majors or Law majors (or any other field of study), graduates working in those fields will face greater competition and subsequently be paid less, making it more difficult to repay mountains of student loans.

In recent years, the higher education marketplace appears to be adjusting itself. Statista.com shows that in 2011, public college enrollment was at 15.12 million students, but it declined to 14.53 million by 2018. Private college enrollment was at 5.89 million in 2011 and declined to 5.12 million in 2018. This seems to complement a growing body of literature that questions the value of a college education. It also comes at a time in which there are shortages in many trades.

Let me be clear, I think education is a wonderful thing. Exploring and debating ideas is, I believe, one essential hallmark of an advanced and civilized society. I simply question whether a university education to the tune of $100,000 debt is the only way to advance and to civilize. I suggest it is not. One of the most well-read people I know does not have a degree; yet, his counsel on any topic is dear to me for its profundity and balance. Granted, that is an anecdotal example, but it is true – and, I believe, broadly true – nonetheless.

In terms of easy loans for housing and education, which politicians like to peddle, let us not forget the words of Thomas Paine. In The American Crisis, he wrote, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.” He was writing, of course, about freedom, but this sentiment holds true as a general rule.

Finally, as for savings so one may “get ahead,” I’m compelled to wonder, get ahead of whom? Again, the implication is that one person’s gain must be at the expense of another. Perhaps this is an incorrect inference on my part. That aside, the idea of saving is wonderful. Again, politicians put out a concept that is difficult to argue. Saving is good, and it can prepare you for the proverbial rainy day or for the golden years. The question comes down, as always, to the proper role of government in this aspect of a citizen’s life.

According to an article entitled “Comparing the Returns from Tax-Favored Retirement Plans to Social Security Yields” by Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation (June 2016), a worker making an average salary will realize an annual Social Security Benefit of $19,646.40. If that same person had been permitted – or even required – to save privately, they could have expected an annual annuity of $57,318.82. It should be no surprise – at least it isn’t for me, when I compare my annual Social Security statement to my retirement account – that the government solution performs so poorly against market-based solutions. It seems that the best way for Americans to save in order to get ahead would for the government to realize that financial planning for retirement is not a core competency it possesses and to get out of the way.

As a classical liberal, I would not favor government-mandated contributions to a savings account or investment vehicle. As a pragmatist, though, I could heartily favor a mandated contribution (e.g., 10 percent of earnings) to some sort of retirement account (e.g., 401K, IRA, etc.) in lieu of Social Security. I almost certainly could do no worse than the government.

As we go through the spring, summer and fall on our way to November, don’t be satisfied with or deceived by lofty, altruistic rhetoric from any politician. Examine and debate policy proposals, and explore their potential unintended consequences. I think you’ll find that you are much more worthy of trust and responsibility than anyone vying for a seat in the halls of Congress or at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Week 30: Wasted Crisis

The quote, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” echoes in the background, as one considers politicians’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Some reading this quote will recall that Rham Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, said this when discussing the political opportunity presented by a shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 14 were injured. His statement was merely a riff on similar philosophies, which may be found in works, such as Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” and Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

It has been astonishing to observe the hyper-partisan, political gamesmanship taking place in terms of actions being proposed to address the crisis. As conceived by Machiavelli, Alinsky and Emanuel, the COVID-19 pandemic is being viewed by those in power (and by those who covet power) as an opportunity to push through their special interests or those of their benefactors (i.e., lobbyists and election contributors). While true of both parties, it appears to be a strategy particularly leveraged by Democrats. This makes sense, because they control only one half of one of the three branches of government. Furthermore, the President’s approval ratings are at the highest level of his presidency, even in the midst of this national emergency. Considering that, many on the left must be concerned about their ability to expand control of the organs of government in the upcoming election. Consequently, loading up the CARES act with pork projects and ideologically-based regulations is the only avenue available to them to further control the lives of citizens and secure their power over us.

Under normal circumstances, I would argue vociferously against huge spending bills. Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic – for decades upon decades – we have been spending more that we can afford for federal programs that essentially create government monopolies in massive sectors of the socio-economic life of the nation. These de facto monopolies, like healthcare, retirement, safety nets, etc. have resulted in higher costs for the people, appalling waste, fraud and abuse for the taxpayers, and lower quality services for those in need.

With the CARES act, I’ve been pushed into an interesting ideological corner. I actually think the government has a responsibility to provide aid and relief, because it is government, at all levels, which has forced businesses to close and people to stay at home. This very well may be the right thing to do in order to prevent the spread of the virus. Assuming it is, it seems appropriate that the government should also have the responsibility to make citizens whole. They tell many Americans that they are prohibited from engaging in activities to earning a living and support themselves. Again, they are doing this for what are likely sound reasons, but they the government should then bear the responsibility for supporting those Americans.

Unfortunately, politicians wasted this crisis in a very important way. They had the opportunity to pass a clean bill that would provide direct aid to those in need. Instead, they bickered and delayed over political topics like airline emissions and diversity standards for corporate boards. They couldn’t focus on providing immediate aid to those in need. They had to grandstand for their own political advantage. They had the opportunity in this crisis to be statesmen and stateswomen. Many, instead, chose to be power-hungry, manipulative apparatchiks of party leadership and special-interest masters.

The saving grace in all of this may be found in the character of the American people. With some exceptions, of course, We the People have not wasted this crisis. In communities across the nation, neighbors are helping one another face this situation. People are, to a large extent, staying home. In work and in personal life, the innovation of the American people is resulting in new and creative ways to stay connected and to be productive. To the extent possible, people are doing what they can to support local businesses, making sure that the mom-and-pops will still be there when this pandemic passes.

As we think about the future leaders of our nation, be they in the Presidency or in Congress, consider which candidates exemplify the lust for power of politicians and which exemplify the positive, self-reliance of the American people. Vote accordingly.

Week 31: Emergency Powers

I do not think it would be hyperbole to say that this election year has been extraordinary. It seems safe to say that the incumbent is a colorful character. His competitors have been a collection of characters who have all tried to outdo one another in terms of pseudo-socialist ideology. Layer on an impeachment and now a pandemic that is, in essence, shutting down our nation (we have yet to see if that will move from essence to fact), and it becomes apparent that we are living through some remarkable times.

Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, includes what is commonly referred to as the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” which grants Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

On September 14, 1976, the 94^th Congress of the United States enacted such a law. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) was intended to provide structure and consistency regarding national emergencies and the power of the government, namely the Executive. Prior to the NEA, many presidents had declared national emergencies and assumed certain powers to manage those emergencies. Of those declarations, many were challenged in the courts. Title I of the act provided for the orderly termination of all national emergencies then in effect or continuance under the provisions of the new act.

The NEA grants the President more than 130 emergency powers, most of which may be used without Congressional approval upon the declaration of an emergency. The powers are sweeping.

Another example of legislation that empowers the President in times of emergency, which you may be hearing about in the news, is the Stafford Act. Enacted by the 100^th Congress of the United States, the act is designed to provide federal assistance during a natural disaster. It also provides sweeping authority to the Executive.

As our nation and the world deal with COVID-19, we are seeing the various actions that national and local governments are taking to combat the virus. While I will not opine on the measures themselves, I would like to offer for your kind consideration the philosophical underpinnings of such authority. In so considering, we may be more fully informed at the ballot box when determining which candidate will better use and respect the emergency powers vested in the presidency.

In the United States, the notion of a tyrant or dictator is anathema to most citizens and most certainly to our founding principles. In Federalist 69 and Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton painstakingly drew distinctions among the proposed roles and responsibilities of the President, those of the king of Great Britain and those of the governor of New York (which is a timely and interesting coincidence, given the restrictions being enacted in New York presently). He then explored the risks and benefits of a strong versus weak executive. Hamilton was making the case for executive authority to be vested in one elected citizen: the President. The Framers believed this would facilitate efficient action, balanced, of course, by the other co-equal branches of government, namely the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Over the course of time, Congress would enact necessary and proper legislation that expanded, and sometimes restricted, the authority of the President. Today, as mentioned above, that authority is not without significant breadth and depth. One indicator to consider is the number of executive orders issued by a president. In my lifetime (1972-present), the most prolific presidents in terms of producing executive orders are Jimmy Carter with an average of 80 per year in office and Gerald Ford with an average of 69.1 per year in office. The two presidents with the fewest executive orders per year in office were Barack Obama (34.6) and George W. Bush (36.4). Specific to declarations of national emergency, there are currently more than 30 active declarations, dating back to President Carter’s Executive Order 12170, which freezes Iranian government assets, and up to President Trump’s Proclamation 9994, which puts in place COVID-19-related travel restrictions.

In national emergencies, the President – any President – may activate military forces, marshal and direct the efforts of the private sector, enact curfews and suspend rights, to just scratch the surface of presidential authority.

Each generation faces its monumental challenge. Perhaps COVID-19 is ours. When facing such challenges, is the character of leadership a matter of consequence? I believe it is.

In the 59^th chapter of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu discusses the importance of moderation and simplicity in governing one’s life and in governing others. If a person understands this and understands the obstacles that stand in the way of moderation and simplicity, that person can be a good leader. In Federalist 57, James Madison writes about the character of leaders. Granted, Federalist 57 addresses charges levied against the Constitution’s plan of representation in the House of Representatives, but the characteristics Madison describes seem to be apropos to any leader. He writes, “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

As we make our way through the COVID-19 pandemic, reflect on leadership. The two references above may be of use, or think about any other leaders you respect. Who is better, among the choices we have, to lead our nation. Hopefully, we’ll be past this crisis by November. Regardless, which candidate do you want, no, which candidate do you think (wanting denotes a decision made in part on emotion, thinking denotes a decision made on intellectual discernment) should occupy the Executive, cloaked in the mantle of sweeping authority? May we all choose wisely.

Week 32: Abortion

In last week’s post, I referred to abortion as one topic more controversial than that of the Second Amendment. No issue encompasses with such depth and breadth the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as does abortion. Those who support each side of the debate claim their position better guarantees these fundamental American precepts better than the other side. Let us explore their positions.

As is often important when discussing a controversial topic, it is desirable to agree upon definitions.

Abortion. According to Medline Plus, part of the National Institutes of Health, abortion is defined as, “a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.”

Embryo. According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing, embryo is defined as “the developing organism from conception until the end of the eighth week; developmental stages from this time to birth are commonly designated as fetal.”

Fetus. Also according to Stedman’s, fetus is defined as “the product of conception from the end of the eighth week of gestation to the moment of birth.” Interestingly, this is the second definition in the medical dictionary. The first definition of fetus is, “the unborn young of a viviparous animal following the embryonic period.” Human women also are viviparous, meaning they carry fertilized eggs internally, as opposed to animals that lay eggs.

With some key definitions established, let us consider a very brief and extremely high-level history of abortion, specifically induced abortion. Some suggest that there has been abortion as long as there has been birth, but the earliest-known, written account of induced abortion comes from the Ebers Papyrus, which is dated to 1550 B.C. In addition to a wide variety of other information, it provides instructions for preparing a vaginal suppository, using acacia gum, dates, herbs, honey and plant fiber. This suppository was used to induce abortion. In the Code of Assura, dated to 1075 B.C., a woman who engaged in abortion was subject to trial and crucifixion. This is the earliest-known account of the death penalty being used as a punishment for abortion. To be clear, I only mention the Code of Assura as an example of such consequences for abortion. I am not arguing for or against such a penalty, as the code has inherent flaws in terms of the equitable application of punishments, particularly as applied between men and women. Since those times, many societies have established prescriptions and proscriptions related to abortion. Some have been based on legal precepts, some religious.

Jumping forward a few thousand years, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which guarantees a right to privacy, protects a woman’s ability to have an abortion as part of their right to privacy. They did specify that there were varying degrees of protection for the act of abortion. In the first trimester, there is an unrestricted right to abortion. In the second trimester, the government may apply health-related requirements that would restrict the abortion right. In the third trimester, state governments could prohibit abortion providing an exception for saving the life of the mother existed. The court’s ruling is similar to the stages identified by Aristotle and his opinions related to abortion. He relied on a form and function assessment. Until the fetus was fully formed as a human and could essentially function as one, it was nothing more than a mass of material without a soul. Interestingly, St. Augustine for some time shared a similar view to Aristotle. Both based their opinions on an argument that may sound familiar to us today – when does human life start. More on that in a moment.

Today, the legal precedent established under Roe v. Wade is being challenged in the Supreme Court. Both Republicans and Democrats are hoping to win the presidency and to control the Senate so they may influence the makeup of the court. An important reason for this directly relates to the impact the court will have on the issue of abortion in the very near term.

As citizens, it is important that we all thoroughly understand this issue so that we may weigh in, by way of our vote, in the upcoming election. Some may argue that abortion is a woman’s issue. With all due respect, it is not just a woman’s issue. Excepting an immaculate conception, pregnancy takes a man and a woman to occur. This is true in the sense of traditional procreation. It is also true for in vitro fertilization (IVF), because a man must contribute sperm for this type of conception. Two key, intertwined issues are those of rape and life of the mother.

As a classical liberal, I believe that the choices people make for themselves, which affect no one but themselves, are none of my business, nor are they the government’s business. Abortion does not qualify as such a choice, primarily for the reason that a fetus is created, in part, by a man. As such, he must be an interested party. Beyond the two people contributing eggs and sperm, each citizen is involved in abortion, not by choice but by legislative fiat. Efforts are and have been afoot to legally require the coverage of abortion in both public and private health insurance plans, as well through public funding of private organizations, such as Planned Parenthood. As taxpayers, Democrat policies would have us fund abortion through grants provided to Planned Parenthood and through benefits conferred through Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Their policies also would require private health insurance to cover abortion. Slick politicians will argue that the money the federal government provides to groups like Planned Parenthood does not go to providing abortions but to other operational costs. This is nothing more than a shell game. Federal dollars free up other monies for use in other service lines, like abortion. At this point, I’m not making any moral argument. I’m just advocating an honest and forthright discussion.

As to the moral argument, there are some who believe that abortion, at any stage of development, is murder. In all transparency, I would count myself among such people. By requiring me to fund, even nominally, or in some other way provide money that frees up other money to fund the act of abortion, I am being required to participate in a sinful act. There are those, on the other hand, who believe it is immoral to require a woman to carry a child to full-term if she does not want to do so. If we did nothing more than prohibit any type of direct or indirect public funding of abortion, we would partially address this moral dilemma by freeing people from financially contributing to a procedure they consider immoral and by allowing others to privately pay for a procedure they believe to be moral. Again, this is only a partial solution to a much bigger issue.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which relates to crime and punishment, states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” This same language is used in the 14^th Amendment, which addresses citizenship. In the context of abortion, this begs the question, when does life begin?

For some, life begins at conception. Two living cells (i.e., egg and sperm) join to create a multicellular, living organism. By definition, an embryo exists at this stage, and by definition, it is a “developing organism.” But what does it mean to develop? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, it means to “grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.” The phrase, "and become more,” is predicated on something existing in the first place. So, what exists? To answer that question, we must look at the parts that form the whole. I presume all would agree that the mass of cells, which differentiate and specialize during this developmental stage, are human cells, programmed by human DNA. Consequently, for a human to “become more, mature, advanced, or elaborate,” a human must exist from the beginning. After all, something can not become more of something it is not already.

For some, this may seem too simplistic and life must begin at a later stage. Like Aristotle’s rationale and that of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, there must be a viability test. The mass of cells is not a person until it becomes viable. What does that mean? According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing, “viable” means “capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.” The Supreme Court drew lines for sufficient development along the trimesters of pregnancy. At the time, perhaps this made sense in terms of viability. As medical science has advanced, though, viability is continually pushed back earlier and earlier in the gestational timeline. Premature babies are kept alive at ever-earlier stages in development. What was considered an unviable mass of tissues 40 years ago is now considered a viable human being.  It seems that the value of a person’s life should be based on something a bit more objective. A bit more on viability will be discussed below.

In a broader sense, using viability begs some larger questions about life and death. Who decides viability? Who regulates it? Is any individual viable? Without many others supporting me, I am fairly certain I do not have the full set of skills requisite for survival on my own. It would seem, therefore, that I am not viable. Consequently, could some power that be determine my life to be forfeit to the greater good? I admit this may be taking the argument to an extreme, but it does represent the slippery slope that is the argument of viability.

Another argument for abortion is “parthood,” which states that the embryo or fetus is part of the mother’s body, so it should be her decision in terms of what to do with it, much like an elective surgery to remove some other growth. True, the embryo or fetus is attached to the mother by way of the placenta and umbilical cord. Is attachment actually the same as being part of the body? Let us first consider what makes up a body? Our bodies include musculoskeletal, circulatory, nervous, integumentary, hematopoietic, immune, respiratory, digestive, urinary, endocrine and reproductive systems. Of specific interest to our discussion is the reproductive systems, namely the female reproductive system. It includes “internal” reproductive organs: ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and vagina, and “external” reproductive organs: vulva and clitoris. It also includes a temporary organ called the placenta that connects the fetus to the woman’s body.

By definition, an embryo or fetus is not included as part of any human organ system. In fact, it is something separate that is connected to the woman’s body through the placenta. The only somewhat-related metaphor I can think of is that of conjoined twins, in which two entities share some common organs and/or organ systems. Even in this situation, they are viewed as distinct individuals.

Another situation that arises and confounds the “parthood” argument is the murder of a pregnant woman or the wounding of a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy. In the former situation, a perpetrator is charged with two counts of homicide. In the latter, with one. How can a murder of the embryo/fetus take place if it is not a human being?

A common accusation made against the conservative perspective on abortion generally and the pro-life perspective specifically is that they ignore science. Based even on this cursory review, it seems that science, by definition, disproves the “parthood” argument, as does the legal considerations related to homicide. If nothing else, this review gives us some food for thought.

The counter argument to “parthood” is the “container” argument. The woman’s body is essentially a container, as the name of the argument would suggest, for the developing child. This seems to comport more closely with the physiology we previously reviewed. Given that a woman and an embryo or fetus are distinct entities, we must explore the relationship between the two.

If the embryo or fetus is not a human being, the argument is clear. The organism has, in a certain respect, no more value than a parasite that is leaching resources from the woman. That being the case, the woman not only has a right to remove it, but she has a duty to herself to do so. Clearly, though, this is not the case. With the exception of rape, a woman chooses to engage in intercourse, knowing that it may lead to pregnancy. With the exception potentially of mental illness, a woman would not voluntarily infect herself with a parasite. From a physiological perspective, too, there is a difference. For pregnancy to be possible, the woman’s body produces a temporary organ – the placenta – to foster a suitable environment for the embryo/fetus to develop. This does not happen in terms of some parasite.

We return, then, to the earlier discussion of when life begins. Once that is determined, how can abortion be anything but the deprivation of life of another individual human being?

As “viability” has been and likely will continue to be a moving target, it makes this approach to determining the point at which one is a human being quite subjective. It’s even more so for the poor, who have limited access to higher level prenatal care, and as we all know, this disproportionally impacts in an adverse way minority women. Consequently, a de facto condition exists, similar to the so-called “separate but equal” application of law during the Jim Crow era, of inequality as it pertains to defining the very condition of humanity. For members of the higher socioeconomic groups, viability is applied differently than for those of lower socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, because socioeconomic disparities tragically fall along racial lines, this approach to determining viability and humanity itself is inherently racist.

As discussed in prior posts, I firmly believe that there cannot be equality until all laws and standards are applied equitably and blindly to all people. The only objective standard that treats all women and all unborn equally is that which asserts that life begins at conception. It seems to me that this also comports with the science of the matter. The mass of cells is indeed alive. The mass of cells function based on human DNA. If a whole is truly the sum of its parts, in this case the fundamental parts being human DNA, how can the embryo/fetus be anything other than a human being?

When the issue of life itself is on the line, why would we, as a society, apply a subjective standard in lieu of one that is objective?

I have mentioned the issue of rape. Admittedly, my personal position on this issue is less clear. Certainly, I would hope that a conceived child not be punished for the aggressive act of a rapist. As for the rapist, I favor life in jail and throw away the key! Next to murder, it is the most egregious act of violent aggression that one person can take against another. We, as a society, should have no toleration whatsoever for the act of rape. Period. The difficulty for me is that in such a case, the woman in no way voluntarily engaged in the sexual act that resulted in conception. In principle, I cannot support a child’s abortion in this case. In practice, though, I think about the physical, mental and emotional trauma to the woman. Personally, I cannot condemn her in this situation for making what I am sure is the most difficult decision of her life. For women who give birth under these circumstances, I have the greatest admiration for their bravery and compassion. For the woman who cannot, I do not believe I am in a position to damn her. For her, I believe it is my moral obligation to have compassion for her.

In situations of the choice between saving the mother’s life or the baby’s life, I believe it’s a decision that must be made between a woman and her physician, and depending on the family dynamic, the woman’s husband, too. This is not to say the husband has the right to say who should live and who should die, it is simply to acknowledge that in some families, this is a decision the wife and husband may choose to make together.

The challenge is that abortion is so personal and often such a difficult decision for people. It is important to recognize, though, that it is a decision that has greater impact than simply on the health choices of one person. As you consider the issue of abortion, which of the principles discussed above do you embrace? Which can you defend? As you listen to the candidates for the presidency and the legislature, which ones will advance your position?