Some day, maybe a few decades from now, I think the history textbooks will refer to the events of the past week as the "before and after" moment in the Trump presidency. The moment when he hit rock bottom, and showed the entire world just how wildly unqualified he is at being president. What makes this different from before? That's a fair question. It's not like Trump's incompetence hasn't been on display before: at the United Nations, meeting European heads of state, mishandling the North Korean nuclear situation. The difference is that now, we're seeing the consequences of that incompetence in tangible, horrific terms - pictures of devastation and stories of suffering coming in from Puerto Rico. Before Puerto Rico, the consequences of Trump's incompetence could only be measured in harsh rhetoric and cooled relationships. Trump certainly antagonized heads of state, among others, but nobody died. He raised tensions with North Korea, but still, nobody died. That's the difference here. Trump's screw-ups up until now carried consequences, but not dire ones. Before Puerto Rico, his incompetence didn't matter the way it does now.
A US territory was leveled by a natural disaster, and Trump's reaction has been marked by callous indifference, zero sense of urgency, and political grandstanding. A president who is more concerned about San Juan's mayor hurting his little feelings, who takes days to waive a law in order to speed up deliveries of aid, who lectures residents with a "pull yourself up" sanctimonious attitude, is unfit to lead. Trump's unfitness has been obvious since Day 1, but this is arguably its worst manifestation. This is his "Nero fiddled" moment.
Donald Trump has crossed over from a loudmouthed buffoon to a dangerously incompetent president. He has Americans' blood on his hands now. The GOP Congressmen who shield him are complicit, and their constituents need to exert pressure on them to stand up to Trump. The citizens who support Trump after what we just witnessed need to walk back their support, or otherwise be called out and shunned. Personally, I don't want to associate with those people anymore. It's not political theater anymore. Those people and Congressmen are enabling someone who will do grave damage the longer he remains in office. Trump is not a harmless nuisance any longer, and it's time to start considering the need to impeach him.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Demolition Man, John Stuart Mill, and the "Nanny State"
Who remembers that 1993 movie Demolition Man? Most people (including me) probably remember it for the explosions and action scenes, and maybe that "three seashells" scene; but there's another part that was probably overshadowed by the rest of the movie. Early-ish in the movie, John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) asks for a cigarette after waking up from cryogenic prison in the future city of San Angeles. Here's the dialogue from that scene:
Spartan: "Yo, gimme a Marlboro."
Cop 1: "Yes, of course. Right away. What's a Marlboro?"
Spartan: "It's a cigarette! Any cigarette."
Lenina Huxley: "Uh, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat..."
Spartan: "Are you shitting me?"
Computer: "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."
Spartan: "What the hell is that?"
Computer: "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."
Huxley: "Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, un-educational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a license."
What's going on, right? Anything and everything harmful - including things that people use to harm themselves - is illegal. That would never happen, right? And what does it have to do with political theory?
We'll get to the first question in a bit, but to answer the second question, I'm going to introduce you to John Stuart Mill. (Not literally, of course - he's been dead for almost 150 years. That would be creepy and awkward.) Mill lived in England in the 1800s, and he was pretty big into utilitarianism. He also formed a concept called the Harm Principle, which connects back to the Demolition Man quote above. The Harm Principle works like this: any actions a person takes to harm themselves are legally acceptable (AKA, the government shouldn't interfere), but it's okay to outlaw any actions which harm others, and punish people who do so. Here are a couple quotes directly from Mill, to help drive the point home.
Now, obviously these prohibitions aren't a march to some dystopian future where people can't go skydiving or drink Mountain Dew anymore, but it's worth wondering how we got this far. The answer, which you might have guessed, is money. Not always, but a lot of the time; cultural norms and morals play a part too. There's a podcaster named Dan Carlin (he's awesome, you should check him out) who sometimes talks about "wallet rights", which came about because the definition of what's considered a person's "nose" in that apocryphal Holmes quote gradually expanded to include things that cost people and the government money. Taking drugs? You might hurt someone or damage someone's property while in an altered state, and society can't have that. Ride a bicycle without a helmet? You might wreck, and ambulances cost money. On the surface, that seems fair, until you consider that just about everybody does something that potentially costs society money. Eat too much red meat? You'll probably require more expensive medical care someday. Like to go whitewater rafting? The odds are that you'll have an accident someday. Okay, so maybe you play it safe and stay home playing video games. Unfortunately, a sedentary lifestyle contributes to early mortality. Oops. Even a healthy lifestyle backfires in the long run, because older people have higher medical costs. It's simply a consequence of aging.
So where do the limits to our individual rights exist? Have we moved too far away from Mill's standard? Or, to consider it from the other side of the issue, should society have to bear the costs of that person exercising their rights? Resources are finite and things like ambulances do cost money, so is using legal penalties to disincentivize behaviors that eat up those resources justified? These questions are part of a long-running debate about individual rights (which are a cornerstone upon which the US was founded), and to hear some sources, the erosion of personal freedom due to things like "wallet rights" has never been worse than right now. Are they right, or is it overblown? And can people be trusted to make sound decisions without state coercion? The answers depends on one's point of view, but whatever answer you come up with, these are questions worth debating.
Spartan: "Yo, gimme a Marlboro."
Cop 1: "Yes, of course. Right away. What's a Marlboro?"
Spartan: "It's a cigarette! Any cigarette."
Lenina Huxley: "Uh, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat..."
Spartan: "Are you shitting me?"
Computer: "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."
Spartan: "What the hell is that?"
Computer: "John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."
Huxley: "Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, un-educational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a license."
What's going on, right? Anything and everything harmful - including things that people use to harm themselves - is illegal. That would never happen, right? And what does it have to do with political theory?
We'll get to the first question in a bit, but to answer the second question, I'm going to introduce you to John Stuart Mill. (Not literally, of course - he's been dead for almost 150 years. That would be creepy and awkward.) Mill lived in England in the 1800s, and he was pretty big into utilitarianism. He also formed a concept called the Harm Principle, which connects back to the Demolition Man quote above. The Harm Principle works like this: any actions a person takes to harm themselves are legally acceptable (AKA, the government shouldn't interfere), but it's okay to outlaw any actions which harm others, and punish people who do so. Here are a couple quotes directly from Mill, to help drive the point home.
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
"There is a sphere of action in which society . . . has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary and undeceived consent and participation . . . This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty."There's a well-known quote (usually attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes) that does a good job of capturing what Mill's Harm Principle is all about in a single sentence: "The right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins." That leads me to the first question from earlier - whether the prohibition of all those things in Demolition Man could ever happen in real life. Well. . .it's not nearly as universal as it is in the movie, but if you think about it, there are a handful of things that generally hurt oneself that come with legal penalties. Here are a few examples: riding a bicycle without a helmet, driving without a seat belt, taking drugs, and buying sugary drinks. Laws like these are part of what some derisively call the "nanny state."
Now, obviously these prohibitions aren't a march to some dystopian future where people can't go skydiving or drink Mountain Dew anymore, but it's worth wondering how we got this far. The answer, which you might have guessed, is money. Not always, but a lot of the time; cultural norms and morals play a part too. There's a podcaster named Dan Carlin (he's awesome, you should check him out) who sometimes talks about "wallet rights", which came about because the definition of what's considered a person's "nose" in that apocryphal Holmes quote gradually expanded to include things that cost people and the government money. Taking drugs? You might hurt someone or damage someone's property while in an altered state, and society can't have that. Ride a bicycle without a helmet? You might wreck, and ambulances cost money. On the surface, that seems fair, until you consider that just about everybody does something that potentially costs society money. Eat too much red meat? You'll probably require more expensive medical care someday. Like to go whitewater rafting? The odds are that you'll have an accident someday. Okay, so maybe you play it safe and stay home playing video games. Unfortunately, a sedentary lifestyle contributes to early mortality. Oops. Even a healthy lifestyle backfires in the long run, because older people have higher medical costs. It's simply a consequence of aging.
So where do the limits to our individual rights exist? Have we moved too far away from Mill's standard? Or, to consider it from the other side of the issue, should society have to bear the costs of that person exercising their rights? Resources are finite and things like ambulances do cost money, so is using legal penalties to disincentivize behaviors that eat up those resources justified? These questions are part of a long-running debate about individual rights (which are a cornerstone upon which the US was founded), and to hear some sources, the erosion of personal freedom due to things like "wallet rights" has never been worse than right now. Are they right, or is it overblown? And can people be trusted to make sound decisions without state coercion? The answers depends on one's point of view, but whatever answer you come up with, these are questions worth debating.
Monday, September 18, 2017
The Push to Abolish the Electoral College, Part 2: Possible Solutions
I wanted to include all this at the end of yesterday's post, but that piece took a lot longer to write than I expected. I'm chalking it up to a healthy dose of writer's block plus lots of writing something, striking it out, writing something new, then going back to what I originally wrote. Repeat until insane. That post was an absolute grind to write. Plus, I got distracted by Atlanta's beat-down of the Packers.
Anyway, here are a handful of off-the-cuff suggestions I have for improving the Electoral College.
First, eliminate "winner take all" districts. There's something deeply wrong with a rule that lets my vote contribute to Candidate A's electoral vote tally even if I voted for Candidate B. Unfortunately, forty-eight states play by "winner take all" rules. This practice is truly undemocratic, because it invalidates the votes of everyone but the people who picked the winning candidate. I propose that all of the states adopt a proportional allocation system: the number of electoral votes a candidate gets is based on the percentage of the popular vote they received. I didn't come up with this idea, but I think it makes a lot more sense than the "winner take all" rule.
Second, redraw the outrageously gerrymandered districts to make them more reflective of their inhabitants. Gerrymandering has been a problem for a long time, and has been derisively described as "politicians getting to choose their voters." The Supreme Court is hearing a case about partisan gerrymandering right now, and I'm glad to see the practice is being challenged in court. I just hope SCOTUS rules against gerrymandering.
Third, let's take a look at mandatory voting as a stop-gap solution while we figure out why so few people are voting. (Hey now! Whoa! I said we should just consider it. Stop yelling at me.) I was going to suggest implementing mandatory voting and leaving it at that (so maybe that yelling is justified), because it would solve the problem of low voter turnout, therefore making election results more reflective of the overall population. Unfortunately, this is like a kid shoving all their toys, stray clothes, etc into the closet instead of actually cleaning their room. It gives the appearance of everything being fine while ignoring the issue. Something is wrong when 41% of eligible voters didn't vote in the 2016 election. Maybe those people don't feel represented, and that's a symptom of bigger issues. I was going to write about those bigger issues, at least as I saw them; but I realized pretty quickly that those issues were a lot more than I was prepared to tackle right now. I haven't done enough research or thinking to write about them, and besides they're outside the scope of this post, so I'm tabling them for another day.
Those are a few quick and simple solutions I came up with off the top of my head. They probably have flaws, but I wanted to offer up some ideas, even imperfect ones. I don't think the Electoral College is perfect, but I think these changes could improve it a lot. But even with its flaws, I think the Electoral College is a better system than a direct popular vote. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Anyway, here are a handful of off-the-cuff suggestions I have for improving the Electoral College.
First, eliminate "winner take all" districts. There's something deeply wrong with a rule that lets my vote contribute to Candidate A's electoral vote tally even if I voted for Candidate B. Unfortunately, forty-eight states play by "winner take all" rules. This practice is truly undemocratic, because it invalidates the votes of everyone but the people who picked the winning candidate. I propose that all of the states adopt a proportional allocation system: the number of electoral votes a candidate gets is based on the percentage of the popular vote they received. I didn't come up with this idea, but I think it makes a lot more sense than the "winner take all" rule.
Second, redraw the outrageously gerrymandered districts to make them more reflective of their inhabitants. Gerrymandering has been a problem for a long time, and has been derisively described as "politicians getting to choose their voters." The Supreme Court is hearing a case about partisan gerrymandering right now, and I'm glad to see the practice is being challenged in court. I just hope SCOTUS rules against gerrymandering.
Third, let's take a look at mandatory voting as a stop-gap solution while we figure out why so few people are voting. (Hey now! Whoa! I said we should just consider it. Stop yelling at me.) I was going to suggest implementing mandatory voting and leaving it at that (so maybe that yelling is justified), because it would solve the problem of low voter turnout, therefore making election results more reflective of the overall population. Unfortunately, this is like a kid shoving all their toys, stray clothes, etc into the closet instead of actually cleaning their room. It gives the appearance of everything being fine while ignoring the issue. Something is wrong when 41% of eligible voters didn't vote in the 2016 election. Maybe those people don't feel represented, and that's a symptom of bigger issues. I was going to write about those bigger issues, at least as I saw them; but I realized pretty quickly that those issues were a lot more than I was prepared to tackle right now. I haven't done enough research or thinking to write about them, and besides they're outside the scope of this post, so I'm tabling them for another day.
Those are a few quick and simple solutions I came up with off the top of my head. They probably have flaws, but I wanted to offer up some ideas, even imperfect ones. I don't think the Electoral College is perfect, but I think these changes could improve it a lot. But even with its flaws, I think the Electoral College is a better system than a direct popular vote. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
The Push to Abolish the Electoral College
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." - Marvin Simkin
Ever since Hillary Clinton signaled her support for abolition of the Electoral College, the number of people echoing that sentiment has grown and gotten louder. Posts like this one have popped up on Twitter:
It's easy to understand why. A lot of Americans are furious with Donald Trump, and not in a "He's implementing policies I don't like" way. It's more of a "He's a complete disaster" way, and with good reason. Trump will likely be remembered as one of the worst presidents in history. Maybe the worst president. The push to abolish the Electoral College is built on an urge to prevent this from happening in the future, because if the Electoral College had been eliminated before 2016, Clinton would be president and we'd all be spared the ongoing Trump fiasco. It's a justifiable and well-meaning movement, but I'm going to make the case for keeping it.
Let's start with an easy one. First, there are about 320 million people in America. Not all of them are eligible to vote, but if you crunch the numbers, only 59% of the eligible population voted (for any candidate). This is just my opinion, but it doesn't make sense to switch to a popular vote system when 2/5 of the population stays home on election day (a greater number of people than either Clinton's or Trump's voters).
Second, people are generally pretty decent, but they're vulnerable to a lot of tricks: things like tribalism, their own cognitive biases, emotion-based choices, misleading information, and so on. They also vote based on superficial reasons. A common piece of conventional wisdom is that people vote for candidates based on their likeability rather than any of the candidate's policies - that a vote comes down to which candidate a voter identifies with, or would like to have a beer with. Then there are the people with "out there" beliefs: anti-vaxxers, racists, conspiracy theorists. Would you want an any of them to have a direct say in electing the president? To have that person's vote be equal to yours? People, even rational ones, don't always make wise decisions at the ballot box. A large population can diminish a fringe idea's reach, but it can just as easily amplify it; and historically, people with radical ideas have had this pesky habit of gravitating toward each other to form influential movements. Does the Electoral College prevent this from happening? No. But a popular vote system increases the chances of this happening. This isn't some idle concern, either; here's what James Madison wrote in Federalist #10:
Third, let's look at a popular vote system as a whole. I'm going to provide some reasons for why it's a bad idea. Let's start with a hypothetical. Imagine that at the start of every NFL season, the entire country voted on which team they wanted to watch. One team all season long, for the entire country. Now look at this map.
I'm guesstimating here, but it looks like Denver occupies the biggest swath of land on that map. (Woo-hoo! Go Broncos!) That's great if you're a Broncos fan, but not so much for fans of the other thirty-one teams; and if you're a fan of the Texans, Jaguars, or Bucs, for example, you'll probably never get to watch a game in this fictional scenario.
So how does this relate to the 2016 presidential election? Here are a few other images to look at. The top one is a breakdown of the election based on the counties each candidate won, and the bottom one is the same county-by-county map adjusted to account for population.
Ever since Hillary Clinton signaled her support for abolition of the Electoral College, the number of people echoing that sentiment has grown and gotten louder. Posts like this one have popped up on Twitter:
Let's start with an easy one. First, there are about 320 million people in America. Not all of them are eligible to vote, but if you crunch the numbers, only 59% of the eligible population voted (for any candidate). This is just my opinion, but it doesn't make sense to switch to a popular vote system when 2/5 of the population stays home on election day (a greater number of people than either Clinton's or Trump's voters).
Second, people are generally pretty decent, but they're vulnerable to a lot of tricks: things like tribalism, their own cognitive biases, emotion-based choices, misleading information, and so on. They also vote based on superficial reasons. A common piece of conventional wisdom is that people vote for candidates based on their likeability rather than any of the candidate's policies - that a vote comes down to which candidate a voter identifies with, or would like to have a beer with. Then there are the people with "out there" beliefs: anti-vaxxers, racists, conspiracy theorists. Would you want an any of them to have a direct say in electing the president? To have that person's vote be equal to yours? People, even rational ones, don't always make wise decisions at the ballot box. A large population can diminish a fringe idea's reach, but it can just as easily amplify it; and historically, people with radical ideas have had this pesky habit of gravitating toward each other to form influential movements. Does the Electoral College prevent this from happening? No. But a popular vote system increases the chances of this happening. This isn't some idle concern, either; here's what James Madison wrote in Federalist #10:
"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."
Third, let's look at a popular vote system as a whole. I'm going to provide some reasons for why it's a bad idea. Let's start with a hypothetical. Imagine that at the start of every NFL season, the entire country voted on which team they wanted to watch. One team all season long, for the entire country. Now look at this map.
I'm guesstimating here, but it looks like Denver occupies the biggest swath of land on that map. (Woo-hoo! Go Broncos!) That's great if you're a Broncos fan, but not so much for fans of the other thirty-one teams; and if you're a fan of the Texans, Jaguars, or Bucs, for example, you'll probably never get to watch a game in this fictional scenario.
So how does this relate to the 2016 presidential election? Here are a few other images to look at. The top one is a breakdown of the election based on the counties each candidate won, and the bottom one is the same county-by-county map adjusted to account for population.
Do you notice anything peculiar? There are a lot more solid red squares than blue ones on that top map - 2,623 to 489 - but the red and blue areas appear to be about equal in the bottom map. Which they are, approximately. The popular vote results confirm that. Here's another way of looking at it. As of 2013, California's population was over 38 million while seven states had populations of less than a million. That popular vote proposal looks a lot less fair now, doesn't it? It pretty much guarantees that the 5-10 most populated states will get all the attention (remember how lopsided Trump's tallies were until they called California), and the least populated states will be virtually ignored. This problem has gone mostly unnoticed, but a popular vote system will only make it worse, because candidates focus on areas that get them the most votes. So, if you live in a major city that has a higher population than an entire state, you're probably in good shape. But if you don't, a popular vote system will make your vote worth less. I'll say that again: your vote will count for less in a popular vote system.
A president is supposed to govern for the entire country. A popular vote system makes that less likely.
Saturday, September 9, 2017
The Star Wars & politics podcast
I just wanted to throw this entry up really quick, to let the readers know about a podcast out there that does something similar to what I do. The podcast is called The Beltway Banthas (heh), and it seems to have a roundtable discussion format. (Full disclosure: I haven't listened to an episode yet - but it's on my "to do" list.) You can link to its official website here, its Facebook page here, and its Twitter feed here. It doesn't seem to be on iTunes, as far as I can tell. Anyway, I just wanted to spread the word about another "pop culture + politics" content creator. Hope you enjoy it.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
All About Game of Thrones
This post will be slightly different than previous ones, because I'm going to connect pop culture to real-world events, not just political theories and concepts. The post's title gives away that it'll be focusing on Game of Thrones, because season 7 of GoT wrapped up recently and I need a "fix". So let's dive in.
I'll start by making the case that Game of Thrones is, in one major way, an allegory for World War I, because I'm a huge WWI buff. Let's start with how the series begins. At the start of the show, Westeros has been at peace for several years, but there are tensions simmering beneath the surface. The Starks and the Lannisters don't get along, House Martell is nursing a grudge against Tywin Lannister, the exiled Targaryan children want to reclaim their throne, and the Night King is raising an undead army in the north. The glue holding that peace together has started to dissolve. This state of affairs is somewhat analogous to Europe in 1913; although it's not a perfect match, there are a few parallels. Despite regional conflicts like the back-to-back Balkan Wars and minor crises like the Fashoda Incident, Europe was enjoying a few decades of relative peace. However, just like in Westeros, tensions were brewing beneath the surface. Britain and Russia worried about an up-and-coming Germany, France smarted over its loss in the Franco-Prussian War, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was clumsily mismanaging the Balkans, and so on. And both the European great powers and major houses of Westeros were ensnared in a web of entangling alliances that increased the likelihood of a continent-wide conflict. I suppose that makes either Ned Stark or Robert Baratheon the Archduke's fictional counterpart.
The next couple of parallels are just coincidental similarities I noticed between the show and mostly 20th century events:
That's all for now. I may revisit and expand on Game of Thrones as an example of realism in the future, because I barely scratched the surface and I also stumbled across some excellent reference material. And if you want to learn a little about how GoT references pre-20th century events, here is a fun article.
I'll start by making the case that Game of Thrones is, in one major way, an allegory for World War I, because I'm a huge WWI buff. Let's start with how the series begins. At the start of the show, Westeros has been at peace for several years, but there are tensions simmering beneath the surface. The Starks and the Lannisters don't get along, House Martell is nursing a grudge against Tywin Lannister, the exiled Targaryan children want to reclaim their throne, and the Night King is raising an undead army in the north. The glue holding that peace together has started to dissolve. This state of affairs is somewhat analogous to Europe in 1913; although it's not a perfect match, there are a few parallels. Despite regional conflicts like the back-to-back Balkan Wars and minor crises like the Fashoda Incident, Europe was enjoying a few decades of relative peace. However, just like in Westeros, tensions were brewing beneath the surface. Britain and Russia worried about an up-and-coming Germany, France smarted over its loss in the Franco-Prussian War, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was clumsily mismanaging the Balkans, and so on. And both the European great powers and major houses of Westeros were ensnared in a web of entangling alliances that increased the likelihood of a continent-wide conflict. I suppose that makes either Ned Stark or Robert Baratheon the Archduke's fictional counterpart.
The next couple of parallels are just coincidental similarities I noticed between the show and mostly 20th century events:
- The loot train battle from S7E4 is kind of like the early battles of World War I (the first few months, before the front lines stabilized and trench warfare began.) Dany's dragon is like the machine gun, a new and effective weapon that creates massive carnage, and the Lannister soldiers are the unlucky troops on the receiving end.
- The Night King's army vs, well, pretty much everyone else is maybe symbolic of the Cold War. I'll admit, I'm probably stretching this connection to the absolute limit, but consider this: the dragons represent nuclear weapons and everybody on the side of the living represents NATO. Also, the White Walkers and especially the wights somewhat resemble a communist society, or at least how other works of fiction have portrayed one; I might be reaching here, but think about the "bugs" in Starship Troopers, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or Animal Farm.
That's all for now. I may revisit and expand on Game of Thrones as an example of realism in the future, because I barely scratched the surface and I also stumbled across some excellent reference material. And if you want to learn a little about how GoT references pre-20th century events, here is a fun article.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
DACA, Congress, and Separation of Powers
I knew I'd eventually write something that would infuriate my (very small) audience, and based on the posts I'm seeing in my Facebook feed, this post could very well be the one that does it. Don't worry, I've picked a last meal and I've got a cigarette and a blindfold - just in case.
Okay, so DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). That's the current Divisive Issue of the Week. I'll start with a little quick-and-dirty history on DACA before I discuss the recent developments. DACA was President Obama's 2012 executive action on immigration, which partly resulted from repeated Congressional failures to pass its own piece of immigration reform, known as the DREAM Act. Remember, executive action. That will become important later. I'm not sure how DACA meshes with the proposed DREAM Act, or with Congress' 2013 immigration reform act (S.744), and that's further down the rabbit hole than I plan to go.
That's DACA in a nutshell. Now, as anyone who has followed the news recently knows, President Trump announced that he plans to roll back DACA, along with a complementary program called DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). His reversal will be delayed for six months, to give Congress time to act (presumably to craft its own legislation). Okay, unpopular opinion time. . . Constitutionally, Trump is doing the right thing here. Congress is the lawmaking branch of government, and it has the duty to come up with immigration laws. Yes, Obama faced an extremely stubborn and unruly Congress (it absolutely lived up to it's nickname of "The Party of No"), but that's how the framework of government is structured. The Founders assigned lawmaking authority to Congress; that duty was never granted to the President/Executive Branch. I can understand Obama's frustration and desire to get something done - Congress was doing its best to block him at every turn, and nobody would stand for that. It's human nature to push back against another person or group of people preventing you from accomplishing anything. Maybe one person in 1,000 could resist that urge. But the president was (is) supposed to resist that urge. It's one of the core principles of the federal government - the president does not craft legislation. There's no "except if Congress won't cooperate" loophole.
Not that Congress is blameless. I'm not giving Obama a pass, but I understand why he acted the way he did. He stepped in to fill a vacuum that Congress created, and he saw the obstructionist Congress as an obstacle to overcome. It had six years and change to craft decent legislation, but instead it grandstanded with stunts like trying to repeal the ACA over fifty times - a task Congressional Republicans knew they couldn't achieve, but did anyway to keep their voters energized - and when the GOP gained a unified government in the 2016 elections, it had nothing prepared. The GOP railed against the ACA for six years, and evidently put zero effort into writing a better piece of legislation. Congress didn't govern, it obstructed and it abandoned its responsibility.
Now, the immigration issue is back in Congress' court, where it should be according to the legislative process. Well, the CATO Institute predicts that rolling back DACA & DAPA will have a high economic cost:
Even though I think Congress would be making a huge mistake by reversing DACA, it is Congress' mistake to make. Trump is actually doing the right thing by rolling back an executive order and putting the responsibility on Congress. Is repealing DACA cruel, foolish, and petty? Absolutely. But we have to see beyond the immediate policy outcome we want and look at the long game. No single official or branch of government should have too much power, and there is a convincing argument that the Executive has concentrated too much power over the past few decades. Curbing that power will cause pain sooner or later - if not DACA, it will be something else. But it needs to be done.
A few additional links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349148-daca-debate-turns-toward-congress
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301
Okay, so DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). That's the current Divisive Issue of the Week. I'll start with a little quick-and-dirty history on DACA before I discuss the recent developments. DACA was President Obama's 2012 executive action on immigration, which partly resulted from repeated Congressional failures to pass its own piece of immigration reform, known as the DREAM Act. Remember, executive action. That will become important later. I'm not sure how DACA meshes with the proposed DREAM Act, or with Congress' 2013 immigration reform act (S.744), and that's further down the rabbit hole than I plan to go.
That's DACA in a nutshell. Now, as anyone who has followed the news recently knows, President Trump announced that he plans to roll back DACA, along with a complementary program called DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). His reversal will be delayed for six months, to give Congress time to act (presumably to craft its own legislation). Okay, unpopular opinion time. . . Constitutionally, Trump is doing the right thing here. Congress is the lawmaking branch of government, and it has the duty to come up with immigration laws. Yes, Obama faced an extremely stubborn and unruly Congress (it absolutely lived up to it's nickname of "The Party of No"), but that's how the framework of government is structured. The Founders assigned lawmaking authority to Congress; that duty was never granted to the President/Executive Branch. I can understand Obama's frustration and desire to get something done - Congress was doing its best to block him at every turn, and nobody would stand for that. It's human nature to push back against another person or group of people preventing you from accomplishing anything. Maybe one person in 1,000 could resist that urge. But the president was (is) supposed to resist that urge. It's one of the core principles of the federal government - the president does not craft legislation. There's no "except if Congress won't cooperate" loophole.
Not that Congress is blameless. I'm not giving Obama a pass, but I understand why he acted the way he did. He stepped in to fill a vacuum that Congress created, and he saw the obstructionist Congress as an obstacle to overcome. It had six years and change to craft decent legislation, but instead it grandstanded with stunts like trying to repeal the ACA over fifty times - a task Congressional Republicans knew they couldn't achieve, but did anyway to keep their voters energized - and when the GOP gained a unified government in the 2016 elections, it had nothing prepared. The GOP railed against the ACA for six years, and evidently put zero effort into writing a better piece of legislation. Congress didn't govern, it obstructed and it abandoned its responsibility.
Now, the immigration issue is back in Congress' court, where it should be according to the legislative process. Well, the CATO Institute predicts that rolling back DACA & DAPA will have a high economic cost:
"We estimate that the fiscal cost of immediately deporting the approximately 750,000 people currently in the DACA program would be over $60 billion to the federal government along with a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade."Those are massive economic consequences, and if Congress was smart, it would vote to keep DACA in place, or at least craft some nearly-identical legislation. This should be an easy decision. However, Trump is still popular with the GOP base, and they want to see DACA repealed, in addition to being anti-immigrant. One of Trump's key campaign promises was stricter immigration reform; and while he's a terrible statesman, he knows how to court public opinion. Basically, Congressional Republicans are in a bind: rescind DACA and take a huge economic hit or preserve it somehow and enrage their base. I predict Congress will let DACA lapse, because the Trump cabinet confirmation hearings and the ACA/BCRA fiasco showed that many Congressional Republicans will still vote along party lines, even if that vote carries serious economic consequences. I do not trust Congress to make the smart decision here.
Even though I think Congress would be making a huge mistake by reversing DACA, it is Congress' mistake to make. Trump is actually doing the right thing by rolling back an executive order and putting the responsibility on Congress. Is repealing DACA cruel, foolish, and petty? Absolutely. But we have to see beyond the immediate policy outcome we want and look at the long game. No single official or branch of government should have too much power, and there is a convincing argument that the Executive has concentrated too much power over the past few decades. Curbing that power will cause pain sooner or later - if not DACA, it will be something else. But it needs to be done.
A few additional links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349148-daca-debate-turns-toward-congress
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)