Government as a Business

Have you ever heard the platitude, “If the government were a business…”? It’s idea is that unless the government models itself off of a wildly successful and efficient corporation, it is running the country into the ground.  Some pundits even like the misnomer “CEO-in-Chief” to describe the President.

This idea of the government as a business is incredibly dangerous for economic policy.  Because profits are good for a business, the analogy leads to the idea that surpluses are good for the government.  All the time.

The federal government’s budget, just like the Federal Reserve’s interest rate, is supposed to be countercyclical.  When the economy is doing well, tax revenues will be up and there will be less demand for public resources.  During recessions, the government will take in less money while providing more services.  In effect, a surplus takes money out of the economy during a boom, and injects it during a bust.

Surpluses and deficits are just a fact of life in governmental policy.  The sheer size of the current federal deficit is dangerous, of course, but for completely different reasons than these.  The business analogy of government leads to very deceptive political demagoguery, that is easy to conceptualize from a non-macroeconomic perspective.

If anything, the lack of real growth following the upswing from the current recession should lead to the conclusion that more stimulus needs injected into the economy, i.e., a bigger federal deficit.  State governments are facing huge shortfalls, meaning that many states will have to raise tax revenues while facing crushing unemployment and poor consumer demand, not to mention the possibility of price depression.

If you think of the government as a business, you are reading important economic indicators completely wrong.  You probably also don’t understand the purpose of taxation.  The prevalence of this lack of understanding is extremely troubling given the large amount of political activity this year, with its apparent goal being to solve our nations economic difficulties.

The Federalist Papers

Just a quick thought I had while keeping up on the health care coverage.  A lot of the conservative/libertarian crowd that are calling for smaller government keep reiterating their support for following the Constitution as it was allegedly intended to be followed.  The Founding Fathers, according to them, wanted a small federal government, with lots of state and individual rights, low taxes and above all would have loathed all kinds of welfare or health care reform.  They would shake their heads in frustration and anger, just like the Tea Party activists are doing now, and long for some way to make the majority see the light.

Among the confused babble of historical support these types bring to the table (i.e., Ronald Reagan, George Orwell, Don’t Tread on Me, Hammer and Sickle) you might hear mention of The Federalist Papers.  These were a series of editorials that were published in New York, I believe, after the Constitutional Convention during the Ratification process.  They were disseminated throughout the American Confederacy, a historically accurate description of the young nation at the time.

Written mostly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (John Jay penned a few), they advocated for the new Constitution, and also for the formation of the United States.  Today, these are often used in legal studies to help ascertain the “original intent” of the founders of the Constitution.  They are also used by political commentators, usually conservative ones, to show that they actually are right and liberals are wrong, because the great progenitors of our great nation wanted a smaller government and less taxes, strictly as outlined by the Constitution.  And it says so right here in The Federalist Papers.

My edition

That may have been what they wanted, but its definitely not what Hamilton and Madison wrote when they penned this great piece of philosophical propaganda.  They were writing to expand the federal government to a level that had never before been achieved.  My copy of the Papers has a nice annotated table of contents that I used in my Constitutional Law class to find a section when I was looking for it. The following list is from a quick survey of that part of my copy.

One of the most repeated words is Union.  How the Union is better at defending the states then if they were left to their own devices.  How the Union should regulate the state militias.  How the Union should be able to raise taxes, and the benefits of this, such as better management of national resources, and confidence and stability in the economy.  How the Union should regulate commerce, and why this Congressional power is so important.  The Union as an “energetic” government, and why its powers should not necessarily be limited to excess.  The Union as a guarantor of equality.  Why states and individuals need not fear the Union.  How the Union can actually defend the individual, and increase his liberty as the Union’s power increases.  These are all paraphrases, of course, but this interpretation is supported by history.

The vast majority of the rest of the papers set out how the complex system of checks and balances that made up the new government would work, and how that careful balance insures that the Union/Federal Government’s influence would be a moderated, non-ideological one, though definitely not a weak or limited one.  They also say that the Union would guard against vocal minority factions springing up and gaining power, forcing tyranny upon the majority.  As historians, they knew the real threat that this scenario posed to their young nation.

Despite being beautiful political prose, we shouldn’t lose sight of what the Federalists who wrote this document wanted.  Their party was one of a strong, national government, whose very purpose was to convince people that this was the right way for the country to go. The Democratic-Republicans, whose leadership consisted mostly of Southern slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson, wanted something more like the hideously inept Articles of Confederation.

Consider how many of the colorful quotes about liberty that grace the placards of the Tea Party faithful are from Virginians, and how most of the men who uttered them actually fought tooth and nail for the Constitution to fail (or at least to be amended).  In the end, it was the Federalists who won, giving us our strong national government that has helped us become the superpower empire that we are today.  As an aside, the strong government types solidified their ideological victory in the Civil War, where Republican Abraham Lincoln once and for all solved the issue of states’ rights.  Calling themselves the “Party of Lincoln” makes more sense for Republicans than to actually find any quotes from him that support their limited government position (I don’t know of any).

The Constitution’s history is a story of the federal government from its very beginning onward.  And the expansion of the federal government was a systemic change that occurred in every country around the world throughout the 20th Century.  It is a trend that will not abate in the 21st.  Bringing the Constitution and The Federalist Papers out to support your position really only paints the connotations of American history over your argument.  You feel like you might have more legitimacy if you cloak your arguments with the faces of the men that appear on our money.  In reality, its difficult to know what anyone alive in 1789 would say about taxation, health care, the internet, aircraft carriers, global warming or Mesopotamia (what they might call Iraq).  Keep in mind these people didn’t even know what germs were back then; what would they care about a government option or not.  At least some of them, had they lived through what was to occur in our nation and around the globe, might even call themselves Democrats.

The Art of the Remake

The key to film-making riches in this past decade can be summarized with the word “remake”.  It’s staggering when you think about just how many movies released recently are mere clones of superior classics.  Their success is especially evident in the long list of sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes already in pre-production for the next decade.  The trend is not limited to any studio, genre or audience.  All of Hollywood appears to be collectively responsible.

I don’t think, like many film afficianados seem to, that this outbreak of prequels and reboots represents a lack of originality or talent in the industry.  There is a decided bias against these films that draw most of their plot from past movies.  They are dismissed as empty money-makers that are only trying to capitalize on our nostalgia.  Because of this they are generally ignored in the critical world.

But they can’t dismiss every remake.  Movies like “Casino Royale”, “The Dark Knight”, “Ocean’s 11″ and even “King Kong” manage to stay true to their sources, but also stand alone as excellent films.  There’s something to be said for the artistic acknowledgment of the audience’s nostalgia for a past source.  Good remakes take this feeling into effect by incorporating the elements that made an original great without becoming bogged down in them.   Bridging this gap when trying to take a classic film and make it contemporary requires a lot of talent and originality that I think some people underestimate.  The fact that J.J. Abrams didn’t have an armed Trekkie insurrection on his hands this month is Oscar-worthy in its own right.

It’s also not like this trend is anything new.  Some of the greatest movies of all time are “just remakes”.  New film technology in the 30′s, 40′s and 50′s propagated a remake outbreak similar to what the industry is going through now with CGI and the digital revolution.  Crime dramas like “Scarface” and monumental epics like “Ben-Hur” are remakes of films from the silent era.  “Star Wars” and the westerns “A Fistful of Dollars” and “The Magnificent Seven” all borrow heavily from the films of Japanese director Akira Kurosawa.  Even the “Indiana Jones” series is based on the old Republic adventure serials of the 50′s.

There is definitely room for appreciation of these new films.  Today’s writers and directors face an actual artistic challenge when they choose to remake a much-loved film from the past.  They have to work within the confines of the original, which usually has a devoted contingent of nostalgic, opinionated fans.  They also are prey to the wider modern audience that has its own entertainment expectations.  Seeing and appreciating what makes a good remake is much more rewarding than to just lament that Hollywood is out of ideas.

Dangers of Empathy

Even if you disagree with their policies, it’s hard to argue that the Democrats haven’t been massively successful so far while in power.  Barack Obama’s popularity polls are soaring, and the party continues to inch closer to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  And now, Obama’s been given his first Supreme Court appointment.

As a former Constitutional Law professor, the President won’t pick someone without a strong respect for the Constitution and its principles.  Obama’s nominee is much more likely to be questioned on a different part of his or her judicial philosophy during the confirmation proceedings.  “I view that quality of empathy of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles,” said Obama at a recent press conference, “as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”  The President’s detractors have immediately seized on this sound bite and are already chiding him for his activism.

Justice Souter was already on the liberal bloc of judges on the Court, so his resignation doesn’t represent a chance for Obama to really upset the status quo just yet.  The new justice isn’t going to be any more activist than previous courts have been.  However, there still is danger in empathy.  Judges should definitely be conscious of the effects of their decisions on regular people, but shouldn’t let that factor into their legal decisions.

The way the Supreme Court affects our daily life is through their interpretations of law.  Through these interpretations, Courts can say exactly how laws should be executed.  Their decisions need to be based on their understanding of the Constitution, legal precedent and the language of the law itself.  Empathy should not be a factor in judicial decision-making.

The purpose of the Supreme Court isn’t to say what justice is, but to say what the law is.  If we disagree with a law, or its implementation, it wouldn’t make sense to go to the Supreme Court and get it changed.  The responsibility lies with Congress to make a law more just or clear.  Opinions of Supreme Court Justices pertain to how the law relates to the Constitution, not necessarily to how the law relates to the individual.

The degree of Obama’s subscription to the philosophy of empathy is hard to gauge from a few short quotes.  But the idea that courts should be a place to change how law is implemented merely because of the effect it has on people should be guarded against.  This is more power than was intended for the Judicial Branch of government.

Googling your way to stupidity.

If anything really dominates the world today, it’s the internet.  Through it, we can instantly communicate to anyone in the world.  Any question can receive an instant answer.  It’s swiftly supplanting our previously preferred sources of information and entertainment, such as newspapers, books or television.  And thanks to the efforts of internet giants like Google, Wikipedia and Youtube, the medium is only becoming larger and more accessible.

What this means for the average internet surfer/college student could be disturbing.  In this vast ocean of information, people want exactly what they’re looking for.  If something’s too complex or vague, I can simply click on the next site on the list that Google gives me.  This leads to the abbreviation, trivialization and summation of critical thought into simple answers. People get what amounts to trivia facts, rather than any actual understanding of something.  A subject’s ambiguity can actually provide insight that is absent from what’s written about it on the internet.

Wikipedia is the prime example of this.  Its breadth is outstanding, but its depth leaves a lot to be desired.  You get outlines of subjects that whittle down and simplify intricate issues into short explanations that might be an answer to a multiple-choice question.  It’s like learning that Christians and Muslims both worship the same God, but ignoring any of the theological subtlety that statement implies.

This problem is magnified by the ease at which information can be added to the internet.  Anyone can add whatever they want, and this creates a kind of scientific egalitarianism.  Opinions and pseudo-facts look the same as accepted science.  With the effort from real research and reporting no longer required, the telephone game that we’re all familiar with goes into lightspeed. People claim to have a right to their viewpoints, and cling to them with the help of these opinions in the face of what actual experts say.   What passes for common sense and common knowledge nowadays probably shouldn’t.

Another possible sideaffect of the technological revolution, though it doesn’t seem so at first, comes from the freedom of choice it gives us.  It’s too easy to just read sources that agree with our views and values, rather than seek out points of view that might challenge them.  This polarizes and segments us into like-minded cloisters that don’t tend to get along well.  When you get used to simply agreeing with whatever sources you get your news from, your capacity to debate constructively atrophies.  Both liberals and conservatives epitomized this phenomenon during last year’s election.

The internet still is a powerful tool, however.  Just being more aware of its drawbacks is a step in the right direction.  Everyone should recognize how they use the internet and the effects it has on their thought processes.  It could use some reform, but the real responsibility has to come from the people using it.

Obomba

Last weekend, President Obama talked in Prague about nuclear energy and the threat it can pose to peaceful nations.  Many countries seek expensive nuclear power to provide their citizens with electricity.  But when nations like North Korea or Iran claim to want nuclear energy for peaceful reasons, the suspicion that they will use that infrastructure for aggression is unavoidable.  Rather than sanction a country that may genuinely want to help their people through nuclear technology, Obama and others are considering the creation of an international “nuclear fuel bank”.  Countries wishing to develop peaceful nuclear infrastructure could obtain the necessary material and know-how from this bank, which would be placed in a neutral country and be run by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Belligerent countries would be left out in the cold, without a peaceful excuse to work on technology that could be used for weapons.

Part of the supply of this bank would consist of material from dismantled nuclear warheads from the Russian and American arsenals.  This would lessen the threat of global nuclear war, and the threat that a warhead might someday fall into the wrong hands.  These measures to phase out strategic nuclear warheads as an element of state defense and potential terrorist attack show Obama’s goal “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

“The threat of global nuclear war has gone down,” said Obama, “but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

It may sound heartless, but there’s a reason countries spend billions on ICBMs instead of on solving global warming or feeding the poor.  Nuclear weapons are still necessary for maintaining peace and they still will be when Obama leaves office.  It’s an old and simple theory, but an important one nonetheless: you’re a lot less likely to hit somebody if they can hit you back.  Nations probably won’t solve their disputes with violence if their opponents have nuclear weapons.  This method of deterrence kept the Soviet Union and the United States from destroying each other during the Cold War.  Today, it helps keeps states like Israel alive, as well as preventing an India-Pakistan conflict from escalating.

Nuclear Powers (light blue), Nuke recipients (dark blue), other states with nukes (red), former states with nukes (green), and states with nuclear weapon programs (black)

I agree with Obama that no more states need nuclear weapons, and that developing nations could use access to nuclear energy to increase their standard of living.  I do not, however, think that humanity has reached a point in history where we no longer need nuclear weapons.  The destructive prospect of conventional warfare is not something that the world should forget or pretend can’t happen.  Obama’s plan has positives, but I feel that his idealism may be misplaced at best and dangerous at worst.

Kepler’s launch an important step

Last Friday, NASA launched a powerful and immensely important new telescope into space.  Unlike the larger and more famous Hubble telescope, which will continue to provide desktop backgrounds for your laptop, Kepler will orbit the Sun, instead of Earth.  Free from our planet’s light reflections, Kepler will be able to provide the most unobstructed view of the galaxy that any astronomer has ever imagined.

The scientists using this new tool are still simply stargazing.  Kepler measures the brightness coming from stars in an area of sky by constantly watching it.  Fluctuations in brightness indicate that a planet-like object has passed between the telescope and the star.  Kepler’s 96 million pixels are designed to detect the most minuscule of light differences at massive distances.  The area under examination is between the constellations of Cygnus and Lyra, and is about the same width of the sky that your hand covers at arm’s length.  Though there are millions of stars in that patch of sky, the odds of finding planets are rare.  Their orbits must be exactly lined up between Kepler and their star.  Most of the planets beyond our solar system discovered so far have been massive, uninhabitable gas giants.  Kepler’s instruments are precise enough to detect planets much, much smaller.

The area of sky the telescope will focus on

Though hundreds of the larger planets have been discovered in the past two decades, Kepler represents mankind’s greatest chance to find a small, rocky, watery world like ours.  Astronomers at NASA will focus on over 100,000 stars and their light signatures.  They expect this kind of sample size to be large enough to correct for the long odds of finding planets small enough to support life; hundreds of new planets, big and small, are expected to be found from this study.  Kepler will stare hopefully at its patch of sky for around four years.  This will be long enough for the light fluctuations to be positively identified as orbiting planets.

Scientists can deduce temperature of a planet based on how far away it is from a star and from knowing how hot that star is to begin with.  If conditions are right, Kepler could theoretically also detect the composition of the atmosphere on these distant worlds. When the study is complete, we will have a reasonable estimate of how many earth-like planets are in the galaxy.  Our situation on Earth could be hugely rare if Kepler only finds more gas giants.  We could also be living in a galaxy where it is common for stars to have earth-like planets orbiting them.  This finding would also increase the odds that life has developed outside of our solar system.  Either way would be interesting to science.  We maybe would prefer to live in a galaxy populated with worlds like ours, perhaps even with other life on them.  Confirmation or rejection of this idea would mean a great deal to how mankind views itself in the galaxy.  The fact that we will know which one it is in just a few years is something that the telescope’s namesake would definitely be proud of.

World Government

Despite the massive injections of money into the world’s economy, the situation is still dismal.  No country is really benefiting in the current economic climate.  This problem has come on so suddenly and massively, that it’s forced most leaders to table a lot of issues that also deserve attention.  Climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, sustainability and development are all issues facing leaders acting in a global environment.

Would these problems be better solved by a worldwide government, as opposed to separate ones?  World government may not be essential to solve these problems, but it is interesting to think about.  Most people either envision some sort of evil empire dominating the world through its military might or a loose connection of alliances like the UN when they think about it.  But history says a likely world government won’t look like either.

A government with any real power to do something is going to need legitimacy.  It won’t be a democracy.  There will be too many levels of power in this new federalism to have the individual represented in the same way he’s represented today and in the past.  National governments, through existing institutions, like the Constitution, will need to cede their sovereignty to some new entity.  This state-like body will resemble parliaments in European countries, and have real control over what happens anywhere on our planet.  Coalitions of interests will be formed, which will severely limit what this United States of Earth can actually do.  The will of the people, though on a much grander scale, will still be what ultimately decides what happens.

How we, as citizens, are going to be represented in this supposed parliament, is going to be very interesting.  How will nations that are around today function?  Globalization is pushing the entire world to a more Western model of liberal democracy, but models of government and society still exist that haven’t embraced this idea.  Emerging powers and those who are still lagging behind in development will figure prominently in future solutions.  Though they are slowly catching up economically, catching up ideologically is going to be more of a threat to their stability.  China, India, Africa, Russia and the Middle East have a lot of work to do before they’re ready for their responsibilities in future coalitions.

Is this impossible?  Technology like the internet and better transportation are making the world resemble a global community more and more everyday.  Common problems drive individuals to cede their liberty to a common power for safety.  This base level evolves into a city, a kingdom, a nation and even into our modern-day superpowers and European Unions.  How that power can exercise that responsibility is the eternal question of government, which will never stop being asked.  Especially when it has to be the government for literally everyone.

My Reading List

Xenophon’s Retreat

How Soccer Explains the World

Guns, Germs and Steel

History of Philosophy

Essays in Existentialism (Sartre)

Discourses on Livy (Machiavelli)

The Marx-Engels Reader

His Master’s Voice (Lem)

The Mote in God’s Eye

I don’t know when I’ll get around to reading these, what with my college readings that I don’t do anyway.  But here’s the list as it stands, probably with updates in the future as I see fit.

Gaza

Israel’s recent attack on the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip may have seemed to most people like just another chapter in the long, disappointing history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I think the reality may be much more nuanced.  This was as much about reestablishing regional deterrence as it was about stopping rockets from Hamas.  Israel’s military machine fumbled through the 2006 Lebanon conflict, and the Israelis would have liked to reassure themselves (as well as their Arab neighbors) that they were able and willing to use massive force when they deemed necessary.

The part of this strategy that is troubling is the use of such massive force in a heavily civilian area.    Israeli strategy since 1948 has always incorporated “shock and awe” to deter attackers and help insure their survival.  But reports of the systematicness of this assault and the amount of civilian death disturbed even Israel’s allies.  Such force may scare off  the current batch of militant Palestinians and their backers, but disregards the next generation of survivors.

Previous assaults have demolished confidence in secular government in Palestine.  They could not protect the people or defeat Israel, which is why so many have since turned to Hamas and Hezbollah.  In this way, Israel has created its own enemies through the means by which they have chosen to protect themselves.  They were angry like they’re angry now.  When someone’s family is dead and their community destroyed, they’re probably not going to vote against the movement that vows revenge against those most visibly responsible.  Hamas as a political force was born from this anger, as well as frustration with the ineptitude and corruption of Fatah.

Hamas should exercise restraint, though, when wielding this anger.  They should take the advice of President Obama, in his inaugural address: “Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”  Many in Gaza may begin to see Hamas much as they did the secular parties of old.  They are frustrated, as well as angry.  Hopefully voters will finally decide to vote for a reformed party that promises more immediate economic development, rather than a party that promises some mythical destruction of an indestructible enemy.

Hamas could be this party.  They, and their constituents, are poised for an integral change in the direction of their state.  Hamas had taken steps to improve the infrastructure of Gaza before the attack, which should be the focus of the party’s future leaders.  Or they could isolate further and re-arm, renewing the historical cycle of violence characteristic of the region.  America’s approach should be to encourage Israel and other nations to take steps to facilitate a transition in ideology, and find political and economic paths to peace, rather than military ones.