Daniel Ruwe's blog

Crossposted at Right Minds

Last Monday, Michael Steele was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. Most of the media attention focused on his race (black), with a lot of comparisons being made with Barack Obama’s election of President of the United State. And as with Obama, it’s hard not to be at least a little inspired that the leaders of both major political parties are black men; men who only sixty years ago would have had trouble simply voting.

But Michael Steele is more than just a black face. His vision of the RNC is fundamentally different from that of former chairmen. Mike Duncan, Steele’s predecessor, saw raising money as his primary goal. Directing the ideology and strategy of the Republican party came second.

Not so with Steele. He sees himself as the public face (or at least one of the major public faces), of the Republican party. He means to shape the party over the course of his tenure—emphasize winning issues and candidates, and weed out those issues and candidates that aren’t attracting voters. Steele will do his best to remake the Republican party.

Is this is a good thing? It can be. Putting men like Steele in positions of power is a high risk, high reward gamble. If Steele’s ideas work, the Republican party will be incalculably stronger. But if they don’t—if he turns voters off and can’t rally the Republican base—his tenure will be a disaster.

Mike Duncan was a safe pick—he was very good at fundraising, but stayed in the background and didn’t rock the boat much. Steele isn’t as safe. But given where the Republican party is politically, I think picking someone like Steele is the way to go. And given Steele’s past record, his chances of success are reasonably good.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

As Barack Obama begins his occupancy of the White House, conservatives are rallying around and attempting to heed William F. Buckley’s example and “stand athwart history yelling ‘stop’.” They are seeking to stop Obama from instituting a sort of European style quasisocialism, and to prevent liberal style collectivist values from becoming entrenched in law.

That’s a worthy goal. But also one that is, in the long run, futile. Eventually, leftism must prevail. Conservatism as we know it cannot hold it back forever.

The reason for this is that all (or virtually all; the exceptions are few enough to be ignored) people do believe that greed is good. People want money: the most money for the least amount of work. And it is a whole lot easier to just vote yourself money instead of going to all the trouble to work for it. That explains why government programs are so popular. They might not be particularly efficient. But it is quite often more efficient to get an inferior product for free than to have to pay for a superior one.

(And yes, government programs are free. Unless you happen to be in the top, say, five percent of wage earners, you’re probably not paying for any significant chunk of government aid. The wealthiest one percent alone account for about a third of tax revenues—the average taxpayer’s dollars are a drop in the bucket).

The history of the United States bears this fact out. The Founding Fathers were the quintessential small-government libertarians—they were afraid that giving the federal government an army would give it too much power. So they designed a government to make it nearly impossible for the federal government to get too much control.

The Articles of Confederation didn’t work so well. So they tried again, and gave the federal government a bit more power with the Constitution. Although the federal government had much more power under the new model, it was still pretty limited. But as soon as it was enacted, the federal government started growing. In the beginning, the federal government didn’t even have a navy. Next thing you know, it’s fighting the Barbary pirates and starting a national bank and regulating commerce and ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and declaring a military draft and the next thing you know, the Great Depression starts. And then government really took off.

During the Depression, the government started managing the economy and retirement. And to pay for all that, it raised tax rates to a nigh-confiscatory level (especially after World War II). Then came the Great Society, where the federal government set its eye on eradicating poverty, and set about reforming healthcare. And then…you get the idea.

The point of all this is that all of these expansions of government were driven by one common factor: the will of the voters. The common people wanted a national bank, and Social Security, and Medicare. These things weren’t forced on them overnight—people asked for them. The most popular presidents have been those who expanded government the most. (Hebert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge are not remembered as particularly good presidents. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt are. Guess which ones expanded government more.) Big government is a key tenet of liberalism—but is driven by the demands of the common man.

And no one wants to lose anything coming to him. That’s why conservatives have been so completely incapable of rolling back any welfare programs. The people want their free money—and they won’t stand for anyone taking it from them.

Most people, nowadays, assume that democracy is the perfect form of government and to suggest otherwise is simple lunacy. (Personally, I agree with Winston Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others). But many philosophers have pointed out that in a democracy, there is little or nothing to prevent the people from voting themselves whatever they wish. And that is a weakness of democracy—the American democratic experiment is a perfect example of this.

Conservatism has been defined as “standing athwart history yelling ‘stop’”. But history doesn’t stop. It is possible to slow it down—conservatives have done an excellent job of doing so over the past half century. But in the end, all their efforts are ultimately doomed to failure.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the morality of torture, and the feasibility of prosecuting former Bush officials who may have tortured Al-Qaeda detainees. Any questions regarding torture are inevitably difficult, and the answer depends in large part on one’s personal moral views. So liberals and conservatives disagree on this issue, and while there is a right answer (unless you believe that morality is relative), there is no easy one.

Liberals (who usually believe that torture is always wrong) are actually closer to the truth on this issue (in my opinion) than conservatives (who typically think torture can be justified). They are quite correct in pointing out that the ends do not justify the means, and that torture is an immoral means. So the Left has it right on this issue, at least regarding the big picture.

It’s the Left’s application of this principle that is a little disturbing. In the eyes of many liberals, torture is perhaps the worst crime imaginable. Keith Olbermann has called on Barack Obama to prosecute Bush for torture, comparing the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh-Mohammed with slavery, Jim Crow, and McCarthyism. And while many people laugh at Keith Olbermann, it’s worth remembering that he is taken quite seriously in liberal circles.

The liberal megablog the Huffington Post has eighteen pages of posts tagged with the word “torture.” It has fourteen pages for “abortion”. “Rush Limbaugh” gets thirteen pages, while “stimulus” gets just four pages. Even “US economy” (which has got to be the broadest possible category) gets only twenty-four pages, just six more than “torture.” Most of what the stuff HuffPo’s writers have to say about torture (it’s horrible, we’re losing face with the rest of the world, Bush should be impeached/prosecuted) isn’t that remarkable—but they can’t stop writing about it.

It’s easy to find more examples of the Left’s fixation with torture—it’s one of the most commonly discussed topics on any liberal forum or blog. And this obsession is a bit perplexing.

Part of it, of course, stems from the natural desire to score political points. Torture is not something most people like to think about, and it represents an easy way to make George W. Bush look bad. And allegations that the Bush Administration violated the Geneva Conventions are embarrassing to Republicans, if untrue (whatever happened in Guantanamo Bay, it wasn’t a violation of the Geneva Conventions—Al-Qaeda detainees do not fulfill the criteria for prisoners of war). So some of the Democrat obsession with torture arises from simple partisan politics.

But a part, I think, comes from something a bit deeper. Liberals don’t like the idea of torturing radical Muslim terrorists, but they hate the idea as much because of the treatment of radical Muslims as for the moral dimension of torture. It would be a stretch to say that liberals (some, of course, not all) root for the terrorists—but then, it would be equally difficult to say that those liberals root for the U.S.

This moral ambivalence doesn’t come from hatred of America, but rather from guilt. These liberals have an intensely Amerocentric view of the world, in which everything that happens—good or bad—stems directly from U.S. action. So these people think that, if terrorism exists, the U.S. must some how be responsible. So in this view of torture, torturing Khalid Sheikh-Mohammed was, in effect, punishing someone else for our mistakes.

It’s this attitude towards America that explains why liberals see mistreating Khalid Sheikh-Mohammed as something unimaginably evil, while somehow managing to find room for understanding towards Hamas. In this view—not only is the United States to blame for any torture it commits, but also for the necessity of any torture it commits.   

Crossposted at Right Minds

Since Barack Obama’s inauguration, many have wondered whether he will attempt to prosecute former Bush officials for human rights violation, and what his position on torture will be. Many liberals hope he will prosecute—they claim that only through vigorous investigation and prosecution can the country move on from the Bush Administration’s crimes. The Right disagrees—they claim that too aggressive investigations will hamper agents in the field, and that what the Bush Administration did was justified in order to save lives. Naturally, liberals accuse conservatives of being brutal fascists, while conservatives accuse liberals of being unconcerned with protecting Americans.

The debate comes down to two questions: a) should Obama investigate former Bush officials for human rights violations, and b) how far should interrogators go to extract information—in other words, is torture ever justified?

Answering the first question, I think that prosecuting ex-Bush officials would be a mistake. It’s hard to imagine the records of any interrogation—no matter how innocuous the methods used—could be released to the public, and presenting a case based on classified material would be almost unimaginably difficult.

Further, any prosecutions would be dangerously close to enforcing an ex post facto law. Waterboarding, for example, may be unethical (I’d guess that Obama thinks it is), but its legality was at worst debatable. If the United States was guilty of state-sanctioned torture under Bush, that torture was probably legally defensible. In fact, the real blame for any torture should lie with Congress for not restricting the practice more explicitly.

The answer to the second question (is torture ever justified) is a little more difficult. There’s a pretty sharp partisan divide here, with most conservatives in agreement that some forms of torture (e.g. waterboarding, if we consider waterboarding torture) are acceptable in some situations, while liberals are virtually unanimous that torture is never justified.

First, two misconceptions, one held by liberals and one by conservatives, should be cleared up. Many conservatives think that any torture would take place only in a 24-style ticking bomb scenario, where interrogators have a limited amount of time to extract the truth. This doesn’t happen, according to most experts. And if it did, torture wouldn’t work, since the person being tortured would only have to hold out a relatively short length of time before the “ticking bomb” exploded.

For the liberal’s part, there seems to be some idea that America’s alleged use of torture is a big selling point for Al-Qaeda’s recruiters. That idea isn’t very credible, at least not to me. Radical Muslims were killing American’s long before anyone in the West even suggested that the United States used torture. And anyhow, if torture is moral and effective (and that’s a hypothetical here, not a statement of fact), then should the U.S. stop using it because it provokes radical Muslims? So did the invasion of Afghanistan, and no one thinks that was a mistake.

But misconceptions aside, the question of whether or not torture can be justified is a complex one. Most would agree that torture is not justified as a punitive measure; the United States can’t waterboarding someone simply for being a member of Al-Qaeda. And for the purposes of this post, we’ll assume that torture is effective (many claim it is not), since presumably anyone engaging in torture would believe it is.

The question comes down to: to what extent do the ends (saving lives) justify the means? Would truly barbaric tortures, such as electrodes to the genitals or drilling through the kneecap, be justified in order to save lives? Given 24’s popularity, I suppose that many would say “yes”, but I believe that the correct answer is in the negative. All people, no matter how evil, still retain some rights, and I believe that torture is an intrinsically immoral act that is never justified. (That, I may add, also happens to be the teaching of the Catholic Church). Some good might come out of torture—but some good can out of almost any bad act. But good consequences do not diminish the immorality of a morally wrong act.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

If Rush Limbaugh thrives on criticism, this is one of his best weeks in months. First, President Barack Obama told Congressional Republicans that they’d have to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh for any sort of compromise to be reached. Then, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee launched an online petition condemning Rush for his now famous “I hope he fails” comments. (The DCCC, by the way, is an official Democratic party organization—Nancy Pelosi personally appoints the chairman of that committee). Finally, Republican Representative Phil Garney suggested that Limbaugh wasn’t aware of the burdens of leadership that people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell labor under. (Actually, a somewhat fair point, except that it isn’t as if the GOP leadership has produced any results). 

It’s hard to imagine what those Democrats who attacked Limbaugh were thinking. Obama seemed to equate “listening to Limbaugh” with “refusal to compromise,” and almost certainly didn’t mean his words to be the personal attack on Rush they turned out to be. The DCCC seems to think that Limbaugh’s “fail” comments were some awful gaffe that would shock the conscience of any reasonable voter, and so should be spread as far as possible. But whatever the intent behind them, both comments are terrible mistakes—and present an opportunity for Republicans.

Of all the Left’s broadcast antagonists, Rush Limbaugh has been around the longest and has the largest audience. It just doesn’t make sense (from a Democratic standpoint) to target him.

First, doing so makes Limbaugh relevant, or rather even more relevant than usual. The President of the United States is the most important political figure in the country. Any criticism of another public figure lowers him to that person’s level. That’s a no-win situation for Obama—if Limbaugh wins this PR war, he’ll be embarrassed, if Obama wins, well, most people expect the president of the United States to be able to hold his own against the media. This Limbaugh-Obama fight isn’t over—but Limbaugh won before it started. But also, and perhaps more importantly, the Democratic attacks on Limbaugh give him status as the leader of the opposition. If Democrats take the trouble to attack Limbaugh, presumably they are paying attention to what he is saying, and think he is enough of a threat to try to marginalize as an unpatriotic hardliner.

That’s a good strategy, if it works, but Limbaugh’s following is large enough, and he has been through enough controversies, to ensure it won’t. But it does make Limbaugh the focus of the Republican opposition. And given that Rush is indisputably the most effective, successful voice in conservative media, that’s a mistake.

The Democratic party’s inadvertent promotion of Limbaugh represents an opportunity for the Republican party. Most Republican politicians, privately, probably agree with most of Rush says. But because of political concerns (one doesn’t want to seem too extreme, and voters want government money), they feel they can’t follow his advice in practice. However, since the Democrats seem to have him on their minds, and Republicans have their hands tied politically anyway, they can now point to Limbaugh’s prescriptions (which will always sound better than what Obama does; it’s is much easier to criticize than to do) as what they would like to do if the Democrats would just let them, without having to pay the political price of actually making them a reality.

(This, more or less, is what the Democrats did while out of power—they rallied the base by encouraging people like Kos and Michael Moore. Once in power, they didn’t do any of the things the far left wanted them to do, but Kos and company served as useful idiots to rally the Democratic base).

This opportunity is what makes comments like Phil Garney’s so baffling. Rush Limbaugh might be the best spokesman the Republicans have. The GOP should embrace him, not marginalize him.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus package puts lawmakers on both sides in a sticky position. Congressional Democrats really don’t need the Republicans to pass the package, unless the Republicans try to filibuster, and it’s hard to see them doing so. But the bill is so big (at least 800 billion dollars), and such a gamble (if it fails, Obama’s, and rest of the Democrat party’s, whole economic plan will be seen as a failure), that some Republican support is necessary, if only to share the blame if it fails. So the Republicans left in Congress have a disproportionate amount of influence on the direction of the stimulus bill.

Some Republicans, such as Mike Pence, claim that the best form of stimulus would be broad based tax cuts. Most Republicans agree. So do many Democrats (at least up to a point), including Obama—tax cuts are a major part of his plan. They aren’t the drastic cuts Pence and his allies want—but they are tax cuts (or more accurately in many cases, tax rebates).

This reliance on tax cuts is in line with standard Keynesian economics. Sort of. Keynesian economics decrees that during over prosperous times, when the economy is growing too fast, government should raise taxes and cut spending, while in leaner times, government should cut taxes and raise spending. (Can you see the flaw here?)

Unfortunately, there’s a catch. Any tax cuts need to be permanent (or at least must exist for the long-term). If they don’t, then people simply hoard the money and save it for a rainy day. According to Joe Biden, forty percent of Obama’s 800 billion dollar stimulus comes in the form of tax cuts. So that’s at least 320 billion dollars simply wasted.

So why not just pass some permanent tax cuts? That’s a popular conservative position—Rush Limbaugh pushes for such a plan nearly every day. Tax cuts are the heart and soul of supply side economics. Republicans don’t have much political capital, but they do have a little, so why not try to spend it on permanent tax cuts which would certainly (according to both supply-side and Keynesian economics) revitalize the economy?

Because an essential element of conservatism is fiscal responsibility. Yes, tax cuts are good things. But deficits are very bad things, and the country really can’t afford them. (It never could, really). And tax cuts, whatever conservatives might say, would mean higher deficits, especially in a poor economy.

The world is about tradeoffs, and the good that would come from tax cuts would be more than offset by the harm coming from high deficits. It’s become instinctive for conservatives to fight for higher taxes, and they are usually right in doing so—but not this time.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Rush Limbaugh caused some controversy (as per normal) with his declaration that he hoped Obama wouldn’t succeed. Granted, he qualified his statement by saying that he only wished Obama ill if his politics were liberal, but everyone knows they will be, and the point was clear—Rush Limbaugh is not rooting for Barack Obama.

Most Republicans wouldn’t be caught dead saying that—the official line is that they really hope that Obama’s presidency is a success. And perhaps that’s true in theory. Most conservatives would rather see the country in better shape at the end of Obama’s first term than at the beginning, and hope that his policies will help the nation. (And in fairness, I must confess that most of his cabinet choices have been much better than conservatives could have expected). But most conservatives are certain that Obama’s policies won’t work (and they haven’t shown much promise so far; stimulus packages, which are the centerpiece of Obama’s policy, no matter how big, rarely if ever work), and career Republicans hope Obama fails because otherwise they’ll be out of a job.

These hopes are tempered by the fact that pretty much everyone hates the Republican party right now. Even Republicans. Many political strategists and pundits (on both sides) think that the GOP is in for a long rebuilding period, which will fundamentally transform the party.

Not necessarily. There is ample reason to look for a Republican revival, or more accurately a Democratic failure. This, of course, was the strategy Democrats used in 2006 and 2008—the Republicans made themselves unpopular, and the Democrats cleaned up. Democrats didn’t win those years by reminding people they were Democrats; they won (in large part, at any rate) by telling people they weren’t Republicans. When the Republicans get back into power (and they will, eventually), that is almost certainly how they’ll do it. And there are quite a few chinks in the Democrat armor to exploit.

First, there are the numerous corruption scandals. When Republicans controlled the country, it seemed like every other Republican politician was engaged in scandal. But since most of the most obviously corrupt Republicans were voted out, and there are now many more Democrat leaders, the situation is reversed—now it’s the Democrats who face embarrassing stories of corruption.

Governor Rod Blagovich is the best example, because of his Obama connection and nigh-delusional arrogance. And Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank all have ethical issues of their own, which can be exploited by Republican challengers. Of course, Hillary Clinton, as always, is in a class by herself—the shady dealings of the Clinton Foundation are prime political ammunition.

And now that the Democrat party is firmly entrenched, Republicans have something to fight against. It was always extremely hard for conservative Republicans to argue their case as long as fellow Republican George Bush was in the White House. (And if Bush was no conservative, it is equally true he wasn’t a liberal). Now, if (when) things go bad, Republicans can place the blame squarely on someone else’s shoulders.

And finally, Barack Obama himself, depending on how he governs, is either the Republicans strongest card or greatest threat. If he governs well (or seems to, which is much more important), then Republicans thinking of running for public office might want to think about waiting for 2014. But if not, then his performance will be an invaluable argument for Republicans.

It is far, far to early to even make an early judgment as to the effectiveness of Obama’s administration. One thing is for certain, though—there won’t be a honeymoon period. Obama is expected to start on his economic plan immediately, which represents a very difficult task, and has already blown off the Politico and (accidentally) insulted Rush Limbaugh. Nobody really cares about either mistake (and the Politico incident, while Obama doubtless wishes it hadn’t happened, wasn’t anything Obama could have predicted), but it does remind some of the fact that when off script, Obama can deliver gaffes as devastating as anything Joe Biden can come up with.

I hope that Obama leaves the nation in better shape than it was when he found it. I’m almost certain he won’t, and would much rather have a Republican government in 2012. And while things do look bad for the Republican party right now, a quick comeback is well within the realm of possibility.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Yesterday, George W. Bush ended his term as president. He left under a cloud—by the end, his own party had little use for him and his final Gallup approval rating put him at thirty-four percent approval. Many believe that he is one of the worst presidents ever; few see him as anything above average.

As with all presidents, it will be decades before one will be able to get a clear-sighted assessment of Bush’s presidency. And any analysis will show he made some awful mistakes—Katrina, federal spending, the Harriet Myers nomination. But the memory of those mistakes will fade with time—nobody remembers whether or not Bill Clinton’s response to the 1993 Mississippi River flood was good or not, and the failed Bork nomination has done little to dim the luster of Reagan’s presidency. Mistakes that loom large now will be forgotten in a few years.

Bush’s record on the economy, for good or ill, won’t be forgotten so quickly. Under his watch, banks and corporations amassed huge quantities of debt. Bush did nothing. Even after it was obvious that the market couldn’t take much more debt, Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson failed to act till it was too late. And the hastily passed 700 billion dollar bailout did little to pour oil on troubled financial waters.

And yet, perhaps there was little Bush could do. The entire economy of Iceland (which was based on banking) has collapsed due the credit crunch, and it is not inconceivable that England could follow. The leaders of neither country did anything to head off collapse. If Bush failed to prevent the credit crisis, so did virtually ever other world leader.

And in any case, Bush hardly shares all the blame for the state of the U.S. banking system. Congressional Democrats encouraged risky lending for years before the crash.

But the economy won’t, in all probability, be Bush’s most lasting legacy. His response to 9/11 will be. And his record there is mixed—and depends a great deal on what happens in the future.

The War in Afghanistan was, by all accounts, reasonably well fought, though the situation there could be (and must become) much better. But the initial invasion was handled well, and Al-Qaeda of Afghanistan was crippled (though not destroyed, since much of its leadership simply moved next door to Pakistan).

However, Bush’s legacy will be decided, in large part, on how future generations view Iraq. It is possible that they will view it as a rousing success, or as a forgettable little war, or as a dismal failure.

If the war is remembered as a success, then Bush’s legacy will look fairly good, and he will be remembered as a brave president who fought an unpopular but necessary war against all odds. If the war is seen as a failure, Bush will too. And if the war is forgotten, and eclipsed by other, more important events, Bush will be remembered as a relatively unimportant president whose main claim to fame was fighting a minor war. (The last is probably the most likely scenario).

But no matter how Iraq turns out, Bush deserves credit for preventing Al-Qaeda from attacking the nation again after 9/11. It’s not clear now how difficult that was (we know little about Al-Qaeda’s effectiveness as a terrorist organization), but we do know that virtually all terrorism experts agreed that America would be hit again sooner or later. But seven years on, there has not been a major attack.

That is impressive, and future events will determine exactly how impressive that is. (If Al-Qaeda were to strike again on Obama’s watch, that would represent a horribly costly endorsement of the effectiveness of the Bush Administration’s anti-terror policy). George Bush has made his share of mistakes, and some of them have been very costly. But on the issue that mattered most to him (preventing another 9/11), he succeeded, though at a very great cost. It will be up to future generations to decide whether or not the cost was worthwhile.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

Today, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. Perhaps no president in recent memory has started his term with greater expectations—many, perhaps most, of his supporters believe that his election is more than an election, but rather an Event of great historical importance. Even his opponents are a bit relieved to see a new face sworn in—President George W. Bush spent the last two years of the his term as a lame duck executive, and hasn’t seemed to be really in control of his own administration, much less the country.

For myself, it is encouraging to see that America has moved past its old prejudices to the point where a black (or really biracial, since Obama is half white) man can be elected president. On the other hand, considering that America is still de facto segregated and black communities are mostly among the nation’s poorest and nobody really cares, Obama’s success should serve as a reminder that while tremendous progress has been made in leveling racial inequality over the last half century, there is still a long way to go.

Inspiring as Obama’s election might be, it is hardly the “historical” event that many of his supporters think it is. In the grand scheme of things, American racism just isn’t that important, and it was quite benign compared to discrimination faced by minorities in other parts of the West. (And while slavery was a horrible evil, it paled in comparison to the colonialism practiced in other parts of the Western world during the same period). Calling Obama’s inauguration “historic” might salve the consciences of guilty (God knows why) white people, but in reality is only shameless hyperbole. (To his credit, Obama himself has mostly shied away from touting himself as “historic”; during the campaign, he mostly campaigned on his ideas and rhetoric).

If Obama’s election isn’t “historic”, it is at least important, since Obama faces challenges equal in magnitude to what the country faced after 9/11. Obama must deal with a collapsing world economy, an economy that is contracting after decades of irresponsible, credit-fueled growth. The philosophy that led to the worldwide recession were held nearly universally—there were very, very few people anywhere who foresaw the credit crisis. Obama will not only have to deal with the recession, he will also be forced to leave behind the ideas that laid the foundation for it.

Will Obama be able to solve this and other problems? His supporters think he can, even if they don’t quite understand the problems themselves. In reality, he probably won’t—an 875 billion dollar stimulus package probably wouldn’t work any better than the 700 billion dollars spent so far, and that sadly seems to be the centerpiece of Obama’s plan.

But to Obama’s supporters, that is beside the point. This important thing is that a liberal, black man has been sworn into office. The Republicans have lost, and George Bush (who they hate for reasons that really don’t hold up to careful scrutiny) is going home, and it will be a while (at least two years) before the Republicans have a chance to get any measure of power back. For many (most?) of Obama’s supporters, Obama’s election is analogous to having one’s football team win the Super Bowl—people care immensely, and have a vague feeling that a win would be a great thing, but if pressed couldn’t really say exactly why or how a win would really make things any better.

Of course, Republicans are no different. Many of them will repair to the citadels of conservative rhetoric, and quickly return with some interesting if irrelevant (and often stupid) attacks on Obama to sustain them while they get ready for next year, or rather the year after next. Whatever Obama does, it will ipso facto be a mistake in the eyes of many (most?) Republicans.

But for all the hyperbole and us/them pettiness, this is still a day to celebrate America. Every American can take pride in the fact that Obama won an election that was, for the most part, clean fought, and that a black man has become president less than forty years after the civil rights movement ended, and that America’s new President is a good and honorable man (albeit one with whom I often disagree). I have my doubts about Obama’s ability to solve our country’s problems—but I hope he will be able to.  

Crossposted at Right Minds

One of the key tenets of the Democrat party, and liberalism in general, is the belief that the wealthy should pay their “fair share” of taxes. It has become something of an all purpose defense of liberal tax policy—supply-side economics is a bad idea because the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, tax increases are a good idea because they will force the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, in essence, any tax increase can be justified by the statement that it will make the tax system more fair across class lines.  

Certainly, the rich should pay their fair share of taxes—that would be an obvious component of any just society. Deciding what a fair share of taxes is is a much more difficult matter.  

Any state requires some taxation. And in any society, the wealthiest will be forced to bear the greatest part of the burden of government, even if tax rates don’t vary by income. And few would argue that it is unjust to require the rich to give a higher than normal percentage of their income to the state—after all, the state needs money (even in the most libertarian countries, the state is responsible for transportation routes and defense, among other things), and it is sensible in most cases to raise rates on the people most able to afford them.  

These rates can vary—at times, the needs of the government will require a great deal of money (i.e., during a war), while at other times the government’s needs will be much less (i.e., never, because government expenditures always grow). So there is no set rate with which fairness can be measured—on one side, a fair tax rate, on the other, an unjust one. The parameters of “fair” are always changing.

Some libertarians argue that any tax rate other than a flat tax is inherently unjust. That is, I think, incorrect. It is merely inequitable. It would be better, when necessary, to tax a rich man at a fifty percent rate and a poor man at a fifteen percent rate than to tax both at fifty percent. It is not unjust (by most moral standards) to expect those who can pay more to do so.  

The best evaluation of a fair tax rate would be an examination of where the tax dollars spent are going. For example, it is pretty much universally agreed upon that tax dollars spent on national defense are justified—all countries need an army, and it is only just to expect citizens to pay for it, and those that can pay more should. Transportation, too, is a legitimate government responsibility. And welfare, to some extent, is a duty of government—it is an obligation of a just society to help those incapable of helping themselves.

But there are some uses of government money that are very difficult to defend as just. Take universal healthcare, for instance. Leaving aside the open question of whether or not it works, it’s proponents say, basically, that it is a duty of the affluent to pay the health bills of the poor (or irresponsible). Or take foreign aid—does the state have the right to force taxpayers to give money to people in foreign countries, no matter how needy or deserving?

It seems to me that the best measure of a “fair share” of taxes is the way in which the money spent is being used, not the raw numbers involved. If the money being taken is spent justly, then the tax rate is probably fair. (“Probably” because other factors must be taken into account—for example, funding an otherwise just war by taxing only widows and orphans would hardy satisfy “fair share of taxes” requirements). If it isn’t, then the tax rate is certainly not just.

(A note on usage: the concept of “justice” will inevitably vary from person to person. A conservative’s idea of a just government would be a minimalist, libertarian microgovernment, while a liberal’s idea of a just government would be a welfare state.)